Delhi Development Authority vs M/S Anant Raj Agencies
2009 Latest Caselaw 1448 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                              FAO(OS) No.207/2001

                                                    Reserved on :  April 15, 2009
                                                    Pronounced on: April 17, 2009


       DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY                        ... Appellant

                               Through :    None.
                                            .

                      versus


       M/s ANANT RAJ AGENCIES                             ..... Respondent
                       Through :            None

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKUL MUDGAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J. MEHTA

1.     Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No
2.     To be referred to the Reporter or not?                                     No
3.     Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?                    No
%                              JUDGMENT


VALMIKI J.MEHTA,J.

1. The appeal has been filed by the appellant/DDA under Section 39 of the

Arbitration Act, 1940 against the judgment dated 14.3.2001 of the learned Single Judge

whereby the learned Single Judge has made the award rule of the court and dismissed the

objections of the appellant except certain modifications, which are not material for the

purposes of the present appeal.

2. The appellant in the grounds of appeal has confined its challenge only to the

FAO (OS) No.207/2001 Page 1 claims No.2 and 10 which pertain respectively to damages on account of execution of

work beyond the stipulated date of completion and expenditure incurred in maintaining

the watch and ward staff.

3. None has appeared on behalf of the appellant to press the appeal.

4. We have, therefore, gone through the records and would dismiss the appeal for

the reasons stated below.

5. The claim No.2 which pertained to claim of damages on account of execution of

work beyond the stipulated date of completion has been considered by the learned Single

Judge by specifically mentioning the six factors on behalf of the DDA which led to the

delay in completion of the work. The contention of the appellant/objector before the

learned Single Judge was that with respect to two of the six factors which the arbitrator

has held being the reasons responsible for delay in completion of the work, were such

factors for which under the contract no compensation could have been ordered. The

learned Single Judge, in our opinion has rightly found that the other four facts were in

themselves enough to support the decision of the Arbitrator with respect to his finding as

regards the delay in completion of the contract.

6. The challenge to an award is limited, being under Section 30 of the Arbitration

Act, 1940, with regard to mis-conduct of the Arbitrator or mis-conduct of the

proceedings. Sitting in appeal over a judgment of the learned Single Judge affirming the

award, the jurisdiction will be even still further circumscribed in that the error in the

judgment under challenge must be such that the finding is wholly illegal or perverse

which calls for interference by this court in appeal. We do not so find and accordingly,

FAO (OS) No.207/2001 Page 2 the challenge of the appellant seeking to upset the finding of the learned Single Judge

with regard to claim No.2 thus cannot be sustained.

7. As regards the challenge to the finding of claim No.10 which pertains to

expenditure incurred by the contractor/respondent in maintaining the watch and ward

staff, the learned Single Judge has duly noted the finding of the arbitrator that though the

work was completed on 15.4.1985, the respondent was required to keep the watch and

ward staff even after the date of completion up to 15.10.1987. Surely it was not a duty of

the contractor to keep the watch and ward staff after the completion of work and thus the

contractor was therefore entitled to recompense. The learned Single Judge has in fact as

corrected the error pointed out by counsel for the parties and reduced the claim under this

head from Rs.2,45,500/- to Rs.2,23,500/-. The arbitrator is the master of facts and the

courts would not interfere in the finding so arrived at unless the finding is shown to be

wholly illegal/perverse or beyond the terms of the contract. As stated above, none has

appeared on behalf of the appellant and we do not find any fault in the reasoning adopted

by the learned Single Judge. It may be noted that the appellant has released the amount

to the respondent and as per the statement of the counsel recorded on 1.11.2001.

8. In view of the above the appeal is dismissed, but without any order as to costs.

                                                      VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J



                                                      MUKUL MUDGAL, J
April   17, 2009
ib

FAO (OS) No.207/2001                                                                 Page 3