Delhi Development Authority vs M/S. Beekay Pesticides Pvt. Ltd.
2011 Latest Caselaw 4361 Del

*             IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                          FAO No.158/1996

%                                                   6th September, 2011

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY                            ......Appellant
                       Through:             Ms. Ansuya Salwan, Advocate
                                            with Ms. Neha Mittal, Advocate
                                            and Mr. Kunal Kohli, Advocate.

                          VERSUS

M/S. BEEKAY PESTICIDES PVT. LTD.                      ...... Respondent
                           Through:         None.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA

    1.   Whether the Reporters of local papers may 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?


VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

1.            The challenge by means of this First Appeal under Section 39

of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), is to the

impugned order of the trial Court dated 19.2.1996 whereby the

objections of the appellant under Sections 30 and 33 of the Act were

dismissed. The admitted facts are that though the respondent committed




FAO No.158/1996                                                Page 1 of 3
 a breach of contract in supply of the Aldrin/Aldrex 30% H.C. as per ISI

specification 1307-1988, however, when the risk and cost tender was

issued by the appellant, the appellant in fact was able to procure the

material at a lower price.

2.          A mere breach of contract does not entitle a person to

damages unless loss has been caused. This is a settled proposition of

law and one such judgment of the Supreme Court is the judgment in case

of Maula Bux Vs. UOI, 1969 (2) SCC 554. Accordingly, the Arbitrator

allowed certain claims of the contractor towards refund of the security

deposit and which was challenged by means of an objection petition

under Sections 30 and 33 of the Act and which has been dismissed by the

impugned order.     There is therefore no illegality or perversity in the

impugned order for this Court to interfere with the impugned order.

3.          Before concluding the matter, I may note that pursuant to the

order of this Court dated 9.2.1998 the matter was referred back to the

Arbitrator for giving reasons and the Arbitrator has now also given

additional reasons in support of the Award by means of a letter to the

Registrar dated 11.3.1998.

4.          The scope of hearing objections to an Award is limited. If the

scope of hearing objections to an Award is limited, then, the scope of




FAO No.158/1996                                            Page 2 of 3
 hearing of an appeal against the order dismissing the objections has to

be further limited. In view of the fact that the appellant was caused no

loss on account of breach of contract by the contractor, the Award has

rightly been passed by directing refund of the security deposit.

5.          In view of the above, there is no merit in the appeal, which is

accordingly dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Lower

Court record be sent back.



SEPTEMBER 06, 2011                              VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

Ne