Delhi High Court
Union Of India (Sr. Divisional ... vs M/S Samrat Construction Co. on 25 October, 2018
$~1
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 25th October, 2018
+ O.M.P. 668/2007
UNION OF INDIA (SR. DIVISIONAL ENGINEER-V, DRM
OFFICE) ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Anand, Proxy for Mr. S.R.
Narayan, Advocate (M-9718447715).
versus
M/S SAMRAT CONSTRUCTION CO. ..... Respondent
Through: None.
AND
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)
1. The proxy counsel for the Petitioner seeks an adjournment. It is
noticed that even on the last date, none appeared for the Petitioner and Court
notice was issued. There is no reason for adjournment in the matter. None
appears even for the Respondent.
2. The brief background is that the present petition has been filed under
Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 challenging the
award dated 14th June, 2007. Vide the said award, the Respondent/Claimant
has been awarded a sum of Rs.7,48,966/- towards the various claims made
by it.
3. The brief background is that the Claimant was awarded a contract for
provision of fencing in connection with high speed high speed in the section
of Assistant Divisional Engineer/Tughlakabad (Junction cabin Palwal)
Section from Km. 1515 to 1511 (Zone-I). The work was awarded on 2nd
April, 2004 and was to be completed within a period of three months i.e. by
1st July, 2004. The date of completion was extended up to 15th January, 2005
with a penalty of Rs.2,000/- per week. The contract was finally rescinded on
28th April, 2005.
4. The initial value of the contract was Rs.76,65,500/- which was
thereafter increased to Rs.95,04,912/- and approved on 19th October, 2004.
A total payment of Rs.85,49,919/- was released to the Claimant.
5. It is not disputed that the work was completed and 12 running bills
were paid by the Government. All the bills were duly certified by the
Engineer-in-charge.
6. According to the Claimant, a sum of Rs.11,77,727/- was outstanding
towards various heads of work executed by the Claimant. The Arbitral
Tribunal has, under Claim 1, gone into detailed calculations of the amount
of work which was actually executed and as against a sum of Rs.11,77,727/-
which was claimed, Rs.4,78,107/- has been awarded. The admitted position
on record is that the entire work was completed and no agency was engaged
at the risk and cost of the Claimant to execute any balance work or
defective/damaged work.
7. Insofar as Claims No.2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 are concerned, the Arbitral
Tribunal has passed a nil award.
8. Claim No.8 relates to refund of security deposit including the earnest
money. The claim was for Rs.3 lakhs and the Arbitral Tribunal awarded a
sum of Rs.2,70,859/- including the refund of the earnest money of
Rs.50,000/-.
9. Claims No.9, 10 and 11 have been rejected.
10. The Government's Counter Claim No. A is related to excess payment
received by the contractor in connivance with the field staff. According to
the Government, the various measurements and defective work was not
pointed out during the completion of the work. The persons who had issued
the said certificates in terms of quality of work were the Government's own
employees. Further, the Arbitrator also notes that no details in respect of
alleged connivance have been proved on record. Accordingly, this Claim
was rejected.
11. Counter Claim No. B relates to penalty which was also rejected.
12. The main objection raised by the Petitioner/Government in the
objection petition is extremely factual. The grounds raised in the petition
primarily relate to the fact that the contractor was given excess payment.
The said ground having not been made out before the Tribunal and the
remaining award having been decided on the basis of the work executed by
the contractor, no interference is called for in the present petition.
13. Under these circumstances, the OMP is dismissed.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUDGE
OCTOBER 25, 2018
Rahul
