M/S Sukumar Chand Jain vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi
2009 Latest Caselaw 2352 Del

*          IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


                                                    Date of Reserve: May 26, 2009
                                                       Date of Order: May 29, 2009

+OMP 301/2009
%                                                                           29.05.2009
    M/s Sukumar Chand Jain                                           ...Petitioner
    Through : Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Advocate

      Versus

      Municipal Corporation of Delhi                                 ...Respondent
      Through:


      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 under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act,

1996 (for short, "the Act"), the petitioner has assailed the award dated 12 th

March 2009.

2. A perusal of award shows that the petitioner had raised claims in

respect of three work orders viz. 373/12, 369/20, 368/28 on the ground that

the petitioner had not been made payment in terms of the contract and the

security amount of the petitioner to the tune of 25% has been withheld. The

petitioner also claimed interest on the withheld amount and late payment of

75 of the security amount. The petitioner also claimed damages.

3. During pendency of the arbitration proceedings before the learned

Arbitrator Justice K.S. Gupta (retired), the parties entered into an agreement

OMP 301/2009 Sukumar Chand Jain v Municipal Corporation of Delhi Page 1 Of 3 in respect of the claims raised by the petitioner. The respondent filed this

agreement before the learned Arbitrator and in the letter respondent gave

terms of settlement arrived at between the parties. As per the terms of

settlement, the petitioner was to be paid by respondent all due amounts

against final bills in three work orders as per the measurement recorded in

the measurement books subject to final calculations. The respondent also

agreed to pay the balance security amount of 25%. The petitioner had given

up claim of damages while arriving at this settlement. Interest on outstanding

payments under final bills and the balance security amount of 25% was not

payable as per the understanding arrived at between the parties.

4. Both the parties represented to the learned arbitrator that the matter

has been settled and the award should be passed in terms of settlement. The

petitioner, however, raised the issue that the petitioner was liable to have

interest on late payment of security amount. Learned Arbitrator after

considering the agreement arrived at between the parties and the claim of

the petitioner on account of interest passed an award in terms of the

compromise, however, he allowed 10% interest per annum on the sum of

Rs.11,88,937/-, Rs.5,86,561.73 and Rs.1,58,718.30 from 1 st October 2002 till

realization. He also allowed interest on other amounts which were mentioned

in the award.

5. It is contended by learned counsel for petitioner that petitioner had not

given up his claim for damages and the learned arbitrator should have

determined damages.

6. In my view, the challenge made by the petitioner to the award must

OMP 301/2009 Sukumar Chand Jain v Municipal Corporation of Delhi Page 2 Of 3 fail. Where an award is passed on the basis of compromise between the

parties by the learned Arbitrator, later on neither party can be allowed to turn

around and say that the award be set aside.

7. I find no force in this petition. The petition is hereby dismissed. No

orders as to costs.

May 29, 2009                                          SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA J.
rd

OMP 301/2009 Sukumar Chand Jain v Municipal Corporation of Delhi Page 3 Of 3