PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.

( 1 ) PRESENT order disposes of IA. No. 13440/92, being objections field by dda under Section 30 of Arbitration Act,1940 to the award dated 22. 5. 1992 published by Shri M. S. Telang, sole arbitrator to decide the disputes and differences between the petitioner and DDA.

( 2 ) IN brief, relevant facts are that on 2. 8. 1982, an agreement was entered into between the petitioner and DDA for construction of flats in Janata Category. Work was to commence w. e. f. 12. 8. 1982 and was to be completed by 11. 8. 1983. Work remained incomplete when completion period lapsed. Superintending Engineer levied compensation on the petitioner under Clause 2 of the agreement alleging failure on the part of petitioner to complete the work. Disputes fell in the lap of arbitrator for the reason contract between the parties contained an arbitration clause.

( 3 ) BEFORE the arbitrator, petitioner raised 8 claims besides claim towards cost of arbitration. DDA raised 3 counter claims.

( 4 ) AGAINST the claims raised by the petitioner, the learned arbitrator has awarded the following :-

I. CLAIM NO. I : claim in the sum of Rs. 2,85,792/- was towards final bill for the work done including payment under Clause 10 (c) of the contract. Clause 10 (c) recompensed the contract for statutory increase in the price of bricks and wages of labour. Learned arbitrator has awarded Rs. 1,72,349. 64. II. CLAIM NO. II : claim in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- was towards refund of security deposit. Amount has been awarded in toto. III. CLAIM NO. III : claim in the sum of Rs. 5,635/- was towards refund of rebate wrongly deducted. Amount has been allowed in toto. IV. CLAIM NO. IV : claim in the sum of Rs. 73,000/- was predicated on clause 12 and 12 (a) of the contract on the allegation that petitioner had laid PVC pipes having larger diameter than the one provided under the agreement for which petitioner had to be paid extra. Learned arbitrator has awarded Rs. 65,815. 89. V. CLAIM NO. V : Claim in the sum of Rs. 43,000/- has been negated. There being no challenge by the petitioner, I need to note no further on claim No. V. VI. CLAIM NO. VI : claim in the sum of Rs. 7,23,000/- was towards escalation in price of work done beyond stipulated date of completion. Learned arbitrator has awarded rs. 2,89,586. 79. VII. CLAIM NO. VII : claim in the sum of Rs. 2,85,000/- was towards overheads towards site office and watch and ward during prolonged period of contract. Learned arbitrator has awarded Rs. 1,96,200/ -. VIII. CLAIM NO. VIII : claim No. VIII was towards pendente lite interest. Learned arbitrator has awarded simple interest @ 12% per annum on the sums awarded under Claims no. I, III and IV effective from 8. 12. 1986. On claim No. II, interest at the same rate has been awarded w. e. f. 11. 4. 1987. Future interest has been awarded from the date of the award till the date of payment or the date when award would be made a rule of the court @ 12% per annum.

( 5 ) ON the counter claims, respondent/dda had a claim of Rs. 50,352/- towards levy of compensation vide decision dated 15. 12. 1988. Compensation claim was predicated on clause 2 of the agreement alleging delay by the contractor. Learned arbitrator has negated the said counter claim.

( 6 ) COUNTER claim No. 2 in the sum of Rs. 1,88,363/- has been negated. Claim was on account of execution of balance work/rectification of defective works.

( 7 ) COUNTER claim No. 3 in the sum of Rs. 1,69,769/- on account of reduction items was held justified to the extent of Rs. 72,979. 32. However, nil was awarded for the reason, learned arbitrator while determining claim No. 1 of the petitioner had taken into account the said reduction items.

( 8 ) COUNTER claim No. 4 in the sum of Rs. 1,62,781/- was held justified in the sum of Rs. 12,124/ -. Claim was for recovery of materials issued but unaccounted for, in that consumption was beyond permissible limits. However, nil was awarded for the reason learned arbitrator while dete

Click Here to Read the rest of this document