SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.

( 1 ) THESE objections are filed by DDA under Sections 30 and 33 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 in respect to the award made and published on 19. 02. 1995 by Shir S. Nagarajan, Sole Arbitrator. The disputes relate to the agreement bearing No. 37/ee/uvdi/85-86 in respect of the construction of EWS Housing of Category I at M. B. Road near Village Lado Sarai. In terms of the Agreement, the stipulated date for starting the work was 26. 09. 1985 and for completion of work was 25. 03. 1986. Thus, the period of six months was provided for the completion of work. The actual date of completion of work is 21. 06. 1987.

( 2 ) THE disputes arose between the parties arising from the claims made by the petitioner / claimant and the engineering Member of DDA appointed the Sole Arbitrator on 30. 04. 1991, who entered upon reference on 19. 08. 1991 and made the Award on 19. 02. 1995. The appointment was made in terms of the arbitration clause No. 25.

( 3 ) THE claimant has been held entitled to various amounts under the different claims, but it is not necessary to deal with all the claimants since the respondent / objector has filed objections in respect of four claims claims No. 1, 4, 6 and 14.

( 4 ) CLAIM No. 1 was made by the petitioner / claimant for an amount of Rs. 9,50,000/- on account of increase of cost of execution and escalation in material and transportation during the prolongation of contract. This claim was made with reference to clause 10 (c) / clause 10 (cc ). According to the claimant, there was a provision for increase in terms of clause 10 (c) by reason of statutory increase in wages issued by the Delhi administration. There was a further plea that the work had got delayed undoubtedly beyond the contract period due to the default of the respondent and an increase of 60% over the agreement rates was asked for in terms of the letter dated 02. 04. 1986 of the petitioner (Exhibit C- 7a ). This claim was denied by the respondent on the ground that there was no such contractual obligation to pay the amount and only the period for execution of the contract would be extended. It was further alleged that even notices had been issued to the petitioner for non- completion of the work.

( 5 ) THE Arbitrator has considered this claim in two parts. The first part arises from clause 10 (c) for the work done during the contract period due to statutory increase in minimum labour wages ordered by the Delhi Administration, while the second part arises on account of increase in cost of work executed in prolonged period of 15 months against the original envisaged period of 6 months.

( 6 ) THE respondent has alleged that the Arbitrator misconducted himself as no notice was taken of the judgment in the case of Ishwar Singh and Sons v. DDA, 1994 ii AD (Delhi) 477 as also by reason of the fact that there was no provision of clause 10 of the Act for compensation of delay.

( 7 ) IN respect of the aforesaid, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of the Court to a subsequent judgment of learned Single Judge of this Court in Shri Sunder Lal Khatri v. Delhi Development Authority, 1994 (2) Arb. LR 479. Incidentally, this judgment is also by the same learned Judge, who passed the judgment in ishwar Singh and Sons s supra (case ). The terms and conditions of the contract are similar and General Clause 1 of the Agreement and its effect was considered since a similar plea was raised in the said matter also about there being no right to get any amount on account of such delay. The relevant clause is as under :-

THE contractor must get acquainted with the proposes site for the works and study specifications and conditions carefully before tendering. The work shall be executed as per programme approved by the Engineer-in- charge. If part of the site is not available for any reason or there is some unavoidable delay in supply of materials stipulated by the Departments, the programme of construction shall be modified accor

Click Here to Read the rest of this document