Delhi High Court
Gas Authority Of India vs A.K. Gupta And Co. on 7 May, 2010
Author: Manmohan
F-46
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ O.M.P. 424/2003 & I.A. No. 10775/2003
GAS AUTHORITY OF INDIA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Naveen Kumar, Advocate.
versus
A.K. GUPTA AND CO. ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. R.P. Kaushik, Advocate.
% Date of Decision : May 07, 2010
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
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
MANMOHAN, J (ORAL)
1) The Petitioner awarded a Contract to the Respondent for
construction of 55 residential flats in the district of Etawa (U.P) through
Work Order dated 4.6.1996 for a Contract Price of Rs.3,63,00,000/-.
2) The work was completed by the Respondent-Claimant on
20.1.1998 and the Final Bill was raised on 25.6.1998.
3) Respondent-Claimant raised certain claims which were not
entertained by the Petitioner. As such, disputes and differences arose
between the parties, the Respondent invoked arbitration vide letter
dated 23.1.2002.
4) During the pendency of the arbitration proceedings, the Dispute
Avoidance & Resolution Team ("DART") constituted by the Petitioner
had reached a broad settlement with the Respondent and the terms of
settlement were duly recorded in a Minutes of Meeting dated
26.05.2003.
5) Based on the said settlement proposals, the Respondent-Claimant
had raised its final claims vide letter dated 29.05.2003, accepting the
settlement terms and also giving-up some of its claims. On the basis of
the said letter, the Respondent-Claimant thereafter revised its claims
before the Ld. Arbitrator, and filed its Amended Statement of Claim on
14.07.2003.
6) The Ld. Arbitrator reserved the Award on 14.07.2003 itself and
finally made his Award on 2nd August, 2003, which has been
challenged by the Petitioner principally on the grounds that the
appointment of the Ld. Arbitrator was not in accordance with the
agreed procedure under the arbitration clause and that it has not been
granted adequate opportunity to present its defence in the arbitration
proceedings.
7) I have heard Ld. Counsel for the parties. The fact that there was a
settlement reached between the parties as recorded in the Minutes of
Meeting dated 26.05.2003 of DART is not in dispute. It is also not in
dispute that the Respondent had accepted the amounts agreed to be paid
to it by the Petitioner in terms of the said settlement. The Respondent
admits that vide its letter of 29.05.2003, while claiming payment of the
said amounts, it had given-up some of its claims, but which have also
been awarded in the impugned Award along with the agreed claims. In
view of the above position claim of the respondent/claimant as
approved by DART and interest on the delayed payment as claimed by
the respondent/claimant on strength of clause 26(d) of the contract is as
under:
Claim Nature of claims Amount Amount
no claimed by settled by
respondent DART
before
Arbitrator
1. Balance Final bill 6,26,672 5,93,799
2. Wrong full retains 1,63,000 23,760
ion
3. Wrong full 1,74,246 1,70,146
recoveries
4. Escalation 4,65,773 1,79,172
5. Bonus on early 1,00,000 1,00,000
completion
6. Work executed but 98,173 70,000
not paid
7. Interest on delayed 4,83,774 71,390
payment & non
payment on R.A.
bills
8. Interest on delayed 11,93,739 Waived
payment & non
payment
9. B.G charges 21,780 Waived
10. Pedenlite interest @ 18% Waived
11. Cost of arbitration 100,000 Waived
12. Total 12,08,267
13. Plus interest claimed by
respondent as per clause 26(d) of
contract @12% on total amount
from 16-06-2003 till the date of
actual payment
8) The terms of settlement reached between the parties on
26.05.2003 would be binding against them, and more so, the
Respondent-Claimant could not have claimed the amounts which it had
itself given-up in its letter of 29.05.2003, and at the same time the
petitioner cannot escape from its admitted liability as acknowledged by
the DART which was constituted by the petitioner itself.
9) In view of the above, the impugned Award is modified to the
extent that Claims No. 8, 9, 10, 11 are not payable to the Respondent-
Claimant. The other amounts awarded in favour of the Respondent-
Claimant shall be paid by the Petitioner along with interest @ 12% as
agreed under Clause 26 d of the Contract between the parties.
No orders as to cost of the proceedings.
MANMOHAN,J
MAY 07, 2010
js
