Back
High Court Of Delhi
UTTAM SINGH DUGGAL AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED - Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA - Respondent
Interim Application 4173 of 1986
Decided On : 05/13/1988
ARBITRATION - AWARD - CHALLENGE - GROUNDS - DAMAGES - CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FOR DELAY IN SUPPLY OF DRAWINGS, DETAILS, STRUCTURAL DESIGNS, SPECIFICATIONS ETC. - DELAY IN SUPPLY OF CEMENT AND STEEL AND OTHER MISCELLANEOUS CAUSES RESULTING IN PROLONGATION OF COMPLETION PERIOD - AWARD OF DAMAGES ON THE BASIS OF COST INDICES OF BUILDING WORKS IN DELHI AS CIRCULATED AND ADOPTED BY CENTRAL PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT FROM TIME TO TIME - HELD, ARBITRATOR HAS RIGHTLY AWARDED DAMAGES ON THE BASIS OF COST INDICES OF BUILDING WORKS IN DELHI.
Fact of the Case:
The claimant was awarded the work of construction of Delhi High Court building at Sher Shah Road, New Delhi by the respondent vide agreement No. 2/re-DADXII/71-72. The work was to be commenced from 12 6. 1971 and had to be completed by 11. 1. 1973. However, the work was actually completed on 17. 1. 1976. Certain disputes arose between the parties out of the execution of the abovesaid work. Initially Shri M. S. Narang was appointed as the sole arbitrator in terms of the arbitration clause contained in the agreement. He resigned on 30. 6. 1980. Thereafter Shri Krishnamurthy and then Shri Ch. Prabhakar Rao was appointed as the sole arbitrator. The claimant was not satisfied with the appointment of Ch. Prabhakar Rao. He moved an application for the removal of Ch. Prabhakar Rao as Arbitrator in the High Court of Delhi, being 0. M. P. No. 71/1983. The petition was allowed. By order dated 10. 4. 1985 Ch. Prabhakar Rao was removed from the arbitratorship and in his place Shri J. P. Singhal was appointed as the sole arbitrator. The learned arbitrator entered upon the reference. The claimant submitted 15 claims before the learned arbitrator. The respondent denied and repudiated all those claims. After hearing the counsel for the parties the learned arbitrator made and published his award on 28. 2. 1986.
Finding of the Court:
The arbitrator has rightly awarded damages on the basis of cost indices of building works in Delhi.
Issues: Whether the award is liable to be set aside on any of the objections of the Objector ?
Ratio Decidendi: The arbitrator has awarded the amount on the basis of cost indices of the building works in Delhi as circulated and adopted by the Central Public Works Department from time to time. The indices show the prices prevailing at a particular time. The difference between the prices at which a particular work was to be done at the time of making of the contract and the prices on which it could be done at the time of breach, could be found out. I do not find any legal flaw in the method adopted by the learned Arbitrator. The Arbitrator had done the calculations and has calculated the amount. His findings on these calculations arc final. Even otherwise I do not find any fault with these calculations. He has given valid reasons for arriving at these figures.
Final Decision: Objections dismissed and award made a rule of the Court.
( 1 ) M/s Uttam Singh Duggal and Co. Pvt, Ltd. (hereinafter called the claimant) was awarded the work of construction of Delhi High Court building at Sher Shah Road, New Delhi by the respondent vide agreement No. 2/re-DADXII/71-72. The work was to be commenced from 12 6. 1971 and had to be completed by 11. 1. 1973. However, the work was actually completed on 17. 1. 1976.
( 2 ) CERTAIN disputes arose between the parties out of the execution of the abovesaid work. Initially Shri M. S. Narang was appointed as the sole arbitrator in terms of the arbitration clause contained in the agreement. He resigned on 30. 6. 1980. Thereafter Shri Krishnamurthy and then Shri Ch. Prabhakar Rao was appointed as the sole arbitrator. The claimant was not satisfied with the appointment of Ch. Prabhakar Rao. He moved an application for the removal of Ch. Prabhakar Rao as Arbitrator in the High Court of Delhi, being 0. M. P. No. 71/1983. The petition was allowed. By order dated 10. 4. 1985 Ch. Prabhakar Rao was removed from the arbitratorship and in his place Shri J. P. Singhal was appointed as the sole arbitrator. The learned arbitrator entered upon the reference. The claimant submitted 15 claims before the learned arbitrator. The respondent denied and repudiated all those claims. After hearing the counsel for the parties the learned arbitrator made and published his award on 28. 2. 1986.
( 3 ) AGAINST claim No. I the claimant had claimed a sum of Rs. 10,54,253. 00 on account of damages arising out of breach of contract caused due to abnormal delays in supply of working drawings, details, structural designs, specifications etc. delays in supply of cement and steel and other miscellaneous causes resulting in prolongation of the completion period from 19 months to 62 months. This claim was allowed by the Arbitrator to the extent of Rs. 3. 27,630. 00
( 4 ) AGAINST claim No. 2 the claimant had claimed a sum of Rs. 99. 430. 00 on account of wonrgful reducation in the agreed rate in respect of re-classification in of soil from 9,00/cu. m. tors,4. 54/cu,m. This claim was allowed to the extent of Rs. 99. 430. 00.
( 5 ) AGAINST claim No. 3 the claimant had claimed a sum of Rs. 8. 832. 00 on account of underpayment of work in saturated soil. This claim was held to be not justified.
( 6 ) CLAIM No. 4 was for a sum of Rs. 34. 622. 00 for keeping the centering and shuttering unutilised for a longer period than the normal one due to late decisions in design, late supply of working drawings and delay in supply of cement and steel. This claim was rejected.
( 7 ) CLAIM No. 5 was for a sum of Rs. l,77,718. 00 on account of unauthorised curtailment of marble work beyond 20% permissible limit. This claim too was rejected.
( 8 ) CLAIM No. 6 was for a sumofrs. 2,505. 00 for expenses incurred on cartage of 167 M. T. of steel on behalf of the department from Rathi Rolling Mill, Shahdara to the site of work. This claim was allowed to the extent of Rs. 162. 00.
( 9 ) CLAIM No. 7 was for a sum of Rs. 1. 16,823. 00 on account of extra item in the provision of special type of centering in respect of certilevered verandahs at a height of 30 ft. from ground level and keeping the shuttering unutilised for a period of over / months due to delay on the part of the department. This claim was allowed to the extent of Rs. 21,132. 00.
( 10 ) CLAIM No. 8 was withdrawn by the claimant during the course of hearing held on 18. 11. 1985.
( 11 ) CLAIM No. 9 was for a sum of Rs. 39,218. 00 for losses due to high cost borne in the provision of Kola Stone slabs in floors and walls due to prolongation of the contract period. This claim was rejected.
( 12 ) ID claim No. 10 the contractor claimed a sum of Rs. 6150. 00 on account of idle labour charges due to delays in finalisation of colour scheme for Block a , b and c . This claim was rejected.
( 13 ) CLAIM No. II was for a sum of Rs. 31. 268. 00 on account of losses due to high cost borne in implementation of the colour scheme fi
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
