Manmohan Sarin, J.

1. Appellant-DDA has preferred this appeal impugning the judgment dated 17th September, 1992 passed by the learned Single Judge in Suit No. 2076-A/1990. The learned Single Judge dismissed the objections filed by the appellant-DDA vide I.A No. 11358/1990, against the arbitral award dated 28th March, 1990. With the dismissal of is 11358/1990 i.e the objections under Sections 30 & 33 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1940, the arbitral award dated 28th March, 1990, was made rule of the court except that the award granting future interest by the Arbitrator was set aside. The learned Single Judge while making the award rule of the court directed payment of interest @ 12% p.a on the awarded amount in respect of claim Nos. 1 to 6 from the date of award till payment. It was further ordered if the awarded amount of Rs. 7,86,245.08 together with interest @ 9% p.a and costs of Rs. 5000/- as awarded by the Arbitrator were paid within two months from 17th September, 1992, the decree would stand satisfied.

2. Appeal was admitted to hearing on 4th January, 1993. The Division Bench in CM 2/1993, vide orders dated 15th February, 1993, directed the appellant-DDA to deposit the decretal amount in the form of fixed deposit for a period of three years in the name of Registrar, with interest component to be calculated @ 9% on the award within eight weeks. The execution of the decree was stayed subject to said deposit. Appellant accordingly furnished F.D.R in compliance with the directions given. F.D. was further directed to be renewed for a further term. On 7th April, 2005, none was present on behalf of the appellant to press the appeal and the same was dismissed in default and the amount lying in the Registry was directed to be released to the respondent. In the event, appellant moved CM 14868/2007 for restoration of appeal together with an application for condensation of delay being CM 14869/2007.

3. For the reasons as set out in detail in our order dated 20th February, 2008, appellants applications for condensation of delay and restoration of appeal were allowed and the appeal was restored to its original number subject to payment of costs of Rs. 10000/-.

4. Arguments were heard in appeal on 20th May, 2008 and judgment reserved. We now proceed to decide the appeal.

The relevant facts for appreciation of the appellants contention in appeal may be noted in brief: The offer of the respondent for supply of machine made door/window, shutters estimated at Rs. 50 lacs was accepted vide letter dated 14th May, 1984 of the Chief Engineer, DDA. An agreement was entered into between the parties on 16th August, 1984. In terms of the agreement, shutters were to be supplied to the appellant within eight weeks from 24th May, 1984 to 23rd January, 1985 at the agreed rates stipulated in the agreement. The Chief Engineer of the appellant was to make allocation to its different Divisions. The Executive Engineers of the concerned Divisions were to confirm the particulars, size and number of shutters required by them for their respective housing schemes under the Division. Appellant made nine allocations between the period from 29th May, 1984 to 18th February, 1986. The second allocation made on 20th June, 1984 was cancelled on 11th October, 1984. The concerned Executive Engineers of the Division gave confirmation against eight allocations between 16th June, 1984 to 12th September, 1986. It was on receiving of confirmation that supplies had to be made by the respondent. The contract period was to expire on 23rd January, 1985. The supply on confirmations received on 26th December, 1984 or thereafter could not be made before the expiry of the contract on 23rd January, 1985.

.5. It has come on record that appellant withheld certain payments in the absence of extension of time and the respondent thereforee, applied for grant of provisional extension of time under duress. Respondent claimed to be entitled to enhanced rate for supplies ma