M/S J.S.Construction vs Dda & Ors.
2009 Latest Caselaw 3278 Del

*          IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


                                                Date of Reserve: July 09, 2009
                                                 Date of Order: August 20, 2009

+OMP 450/2009
%                                                                  20.08.2009
    M/s J.S. Construction
    Through proprietor Shri Jai Singh                        ...Petitioner
    Through: Mr. Sudhanshu Batra, Advocate

      Versus

      DDA & Ors.                                             ...Respondents
      Through: Nemo


      JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA

1.    Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2.    To be referred to the reporter or not?

3.    Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?


      JUDGMENT

1. By this petition, the petitioner has filed objections against an award

dated 17th March 2009 passed by the learned arbitrator in respect of Claim

No.3 raised by the petitioner before the arbitrator.

2. The contention of the petitioner is that vide claim no.3, the petitioner

had asked for an amount of Rs.47,03,737/- on account of extra rates claimed

from time to time due to rise in prices of labour and material for the work

done beyond the stipulated date of work. The learned arbitrator wrongly held

that since the petitioner has already been compensated under Clause 10 CC

of the agreement, further enhancement of rates was not justified.

3. It is submitted by the petitioner that the conclusion arrived at by the

arbitrator was contrary to the true spirit of Section 73 and 74 of the Contract

OMP 450/2009 J.S. Construction v.DDA & Ors. Page 1 Of 2 Act and was against the settled principle of law, therefore, contrary to public

policy of India.

4. By no stretch of imagination, it can be said that where the claim of

petitioner has been turned down on the ground that petitioner had already

received enhancement in terms of the contract and additional enhancement

was not tenable or that additional amount was not payable, the award

becomes contrary to public policy. The terms "public policy" cannot be

trivialized to an extent that disallowing a claim of petitioner by the arbitrator

after giving reasons can be held to be in violation of the public policy. The

petitioner has already received the entire amount under the award. The

challenge to the award made by petitioner on the ground that one of the

claims of petitioner being not allowed by the arbitrator amounted to violation

of public policy, is not tenable.

5. For the reasons stated above, I find no force in this petition. The

petition is hereby dismissed. No orders as to costs.

August 20, 2009                                    SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA J.
rd




OMP 450/2009               J.S. Construction v.DDA & Ors.         Page 2 Of 2