Delhi High Court
Metro Electric Co. vs Delhi Development Authority on 26 March, 2012
Author: S. Muralidhar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
CS (OS) No. 568-A of 2006
Reserved on: 23rd February 2012
Decision on: 26th March 2012.
METRO ELECTRIC CO. ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Sumiti Anand, Advocate.
Versus
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Bankey Bihari Sharma, Advocate.
CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR
JUDGMENT
26.03.2012
1. These are objections filed by the Delhi Development Authority ('DDA')
under Sections 30 & 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 ('Act') to an Award
dated 17th May 2000 passed by the learned Arbitrator arising out of the
contract for construction of a local shopping centre near A-Block, Naraina
Vihar by the DDA in favour of Metro Electric Company
('MEC'/`Claimant').
2. There were five items of claim filed by MEC before the learned
Arbitrator. Claim No.1 was for a sum of Rs.2,56,210/- on account of final
bill. The work had been completed by MEC on 7th January 1987. The claim
was bifurcated into Sections A to G. The stand of the DDA was that since
the Claimant had not completed the work, the contract was rescinded and
the balance work was got executed at the risk and cost of the Claimant
through another contractor. It was submitted by the DDA that after making
the necessary recoveries, the Claimant was entitled to only Rs.31,158.
After analyzing the evidence, the learned Arbitrator determined the justified
amounts against each of items with reasons.
3. In the objections filed by the DDA to the above decision, it is not
pointed out in what manner the learned Arbitrator has committed an error
apparent to the face of the record. According to the Claimant, it had
completed the work on 7th January 1987 and whereas, the rescinding of the
contract by the DDA was only in July 1998, clearly the original time period
was exceeded. In the circumstances, the claims of the Claimant could not be
said to be without basis. Once, the learned Arbitrator held that the Claimant
had proved that he had completed the work on 7th January 1987, the
rescinding of the contract by the DDA in July 1988 was indeed not
justified.
4. Under Claim No.2, the MEC had claimed refund of the security deposit
of Rs.45,000/-. The only objection to this is that the decision is not based
on any evidence. Once, the learned Arbitrator has held that the Claimant
has completed the work in all respects, the ordering of the refund of the
security amount to the extent of Rs.38,076.50 which had been deducted had
to follow and that was what was awarded to the claimant. The Award
cannot be said to suffer from any illegality on this score.
5. The DDA objects to the Award in respect of 63 MCBs on the ground
that the DDA had already paid for these MCBs to another agency which
was provided in a separate agreement. It is submitted by the DDA that this
part of the Award is not based on any evidence. Noting that 102 MCBs
were handed over by MEC to the DDA, after accounting for the payment
made for 36 MCBs, it was held that 66 MCBs were still to be paid. The
reasons given by the learned Arbitrator are cogent and are based on the
evidence placed on record and do not call for any interference.
6. Under Claim No.3, damages were claimed to the extent of Rs.91,830.
The learned Arbitrator has allowed only the labour component for the work
done till 1st June 1984 and has calculated the increase at Rs.10,283. This
Court is unable to find any ground having been made out for interference.
Since the increase was beyond 10% it cannot be said that the provisions of
Clause 10(c) were not adhered to.
7. As regards the claim for interest at 18% per annum, the learned
Arbitrator has awarded simple interest at 7.5% per annum from 5th
September 1988 to 17th May 2000.
8. No ground has been made out for any interference with the impugned
Award. The objections are therefore rejected. The impugned Award is
affirmed and made a rule of the Court. Decree sheet be drawn up
accordingly. The suit is disposed of.
S. MURALIDHAR, J.
MARCH 26, 2012
bs
