Dda vs Cds Gujral
2009 Latest Caselaw 2435 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                             FAO(OS) 113/1998

%                                          Decided on : 2nd July, 2009
       DDA                                                                  ..... Appellant
                              Through:     Ms. Renuka Arora, Advocate.
                     Versus

       CDS GUJRAL                                                    ..... Respondent
                              Through:     None.
       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKUL MUDGAL
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NEERAJ KISHAN KAUL

1.     Whether the Reporters of the local newspapers be allowed to see the Judgment?
2.     To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3.     Whether the Judgment should be reported in the Digest?

                              J U D G M E N T (ORAL)

MUKUL MUDGAL, J.

1. This appeal challenges the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 7th August,

1997, by which the objections preferred by the respondents were dismissed but the

interest awarded by the learned Arbitrator's Award dated 23rd December, 1993 was

reduced from 18% to 12%. The dispute between the parties arose from the construction

work of 7,000 Dwelling Units at Trilokpuri Trans Yamuna area which involved a

construction of 168 MIG and 56 LIG Houses.

2. The respondent being aggrieved had preferred a claim before the Arbitrator and

the Arbitrator awarded a sum of Rs. 5,05,577.22 in favour of the respondent/contractor.

The award was challenged before the learned Single Judge and as recorded by the learned

Single Judge and not disputed in the pleadings in this appeal, the main thrust of the

argument of the learned counsel for the respondent was to Claim No. 3 under the Award.

3. Insofar as Claim No. 3 is concerned, the learned Arbitrator found as follows:-

FAO (OS) No. 113/1998

page 1 of 3

(a) That the delay in the execution of work was caused entirely due to the respondent's actions, as recorded under Claim No. 11 where it was found that the respondents did not hand over structural drawings and make available the electricity connection till even the expiry of the stipulated contract period though it was their contractual obligation to do so. The High Tension Electric Lines over a few blocks to be constructed under the contract were removed just near the expiry of the stipulated contract period.

(b) That in view of the above findings, it was held that the delay for the execution of the work was solely due to the respondents actions.

Accordingly, the respondent was awarded a sum of Rs. 1,12,185.40 under Claim

No. 3 based upon the 20% labour element for execution of such work, as per the norms in

the Trade.

4. In our view, the aforesaid payment was in relation to extra expenditure incurred

on rise in emoluments of labour for the quantum of work executed after the expiry of the

stipulated contract period. The Arbitrator has given a reasoned finding that delay in

execution of the work was on account of breaches committed by the appellants. The

High Tension Electric lines over a few blocks to be constructed under the contract were

removed just near the expiry of stipulated contract period. The appellants did not hand

over structural drawings for single unit blocks and make available the electricity

connection till even expiry of stipulated contract period though the same was the

appellants obligation in terms of the contract. Accordingly, there had been prolongation

of work beyond the stipulated contract period because of delays attributable to the

appellants.

5. The Arbitrator consequently held that the respondents were liable to be

compensated for the same. The Arbitrator was fully justified in coming to the said

finding. The Arbitrator was an expert in the field being a retired Additional Director

General of CPWD. These findings in our view do not call for any interference by this

Court. Moreover, no serious challenge has been made to this finding of the Arbitrator

that the prolongation of work beyond the stipulated contract period was because of delays

attributable to the appellants. We are also in agreement with the findings of the

Arbitrator as regards Claim Nos. 5 and 6. Claim No. 5 was with regard to rise in wages

of labour on account of statutory notification and Claim No. 6 is also on account of rise in

wages of labour on account of statutory notification. Both these increases were statutory

and came into force during the stipulated contract period itself. That being so, the

learned Single Judge has rightly held that the Arbitrator was fully justified in awarding

the claims under head 5 and 6.

6. We find no reason to interfere with the findings of the learned Single Judge and

are in complete agreement with the said findings. Accordingly, we find no merit in the

appeal and the same is dismissed.

MUKUL MUDGAL, J

NEERAJ KISHAN KAUL, J JULY 02, 2009 sb/RS