O.M.P. (COMM) 489/2020 Page 1 of 15

$~4 (2020)

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Date of Decision: 25^th August, 2021

+

O.M.P. (COMM) 489/2020 & I.A. 8844/2020

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

..... Petitioner

Through:

Ms. Kanika Singh, Advocate.

versus

SATYA PRAKASH AND BROS PVT. LTD.

..... Respondent

Through:

Mr. Aseem Mehrotra, Advocate.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

JUDGMENT

[VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING]

SANJEEV NARULA, J. (Oral):

1. The present petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and

Conciliation Act, 1996 [hereinafter, ‘the Act’] has been filed by the

Petitioner [hereinafter, ‘DDA’] seeking setting aside of the impugned

Arbitral Award dated 22^nd April, 2020 [hereinafter,‘Award’] passed the

Sole Arbitrator, in so far as it awards the amount qua Claim No. 3 and

interest thereon under Claim No. 5 in favour of the Respondent herein –

M/s. Satya Prakash & Bros. Pvt. Ltd. (being the Claimant therein)

[hereinafter, ‘SPBPL’].

BRIEF FACTS

2. The facts giving rise to the present petition are summarized as

2021:DHC:2627

O.M.P. (COMM) 489/2020 Page 2 of 15

follows: -

2.1

SPBPL being the L-1 bidder, was awarded contract for work of

village Karala Mazari for part of alignment passing through Rohini”,

by DDA, under Agreement No. 03/EE/MPR1/DDA/2012-13 for a

value of Rs. 56,16,62,727/-. The stipulated commencement date was

14^th January, 2013 and completion date was 13^th April, 2014.

2.2

A separate Supplementary Agreement - No. 3A/EE/MPR-1/DDA/

2012-13 was also executed between the parties.

2.3

Agreement Item no. 4 of Bill of Quantities [hereinafter, ‘BOQ’]

pertained to construction for embankment by getting earth from “all

leads and lifts, transporting to site”. The tender estimate rate for the

same was fixed by DDA as Rs. 171.10/- [calculated taking the

transportation lead of 20 kms]; SPBPL quoted the rate of Rs. 234/-;

the same was accepted by DDA; it was applicable to any/ all

distances.

2.4

During the execution of the work SPBPL expressed inability to source

the material (earth) and requested DDA for helping/ arranging

procurement of earth for execution of work, as ‘earth’ was not

available in nearby areas, on account of ban imposed by the Supreme

Court on excavation of earth from cultivated land in NCR Delhi.

2021:DHC:2627

O.M.P. (COMM) 489/2020 Page 3 of 15

Acting upon the request of the SPBPL and in the interest of work,

DDA requested DSIIDC to allow earth to be procured from its site

which was at a distance of 8 kms. SPBPL was put to notice that it

would be treated as a substituted item relying on Clause 12 the

Agreement¹ SPBPL, on the other hand, refuted DDA’s substitution of

the agreed ‘rates’ and contended and it had never agreed or consented

to the same. Disputes finally arose when, SPBPL received the final

bill from DDA and after scrutiny thereof, it was observed that

payments against some claims, were not included.

2.5

In the afore-noted background, when SPBPL invoked arbitration vide

letter dated 16^th March, 2019, DDA appointed Mr. Sarvagya Kumar

Srivastava as the Sole Arbitrator. The arbitration proceedings have

now culminated into the Award dated 22^nd April, 2020. DDA assails

the same qua following claims: -

Claim No. 3 – Rate of payment relating to embankment work under

the Agreement.

i.

The Claim No. 3, pertains to agreement Item No. 4 dealing with

construction of embankment with approved material (earth)

obtained from borrow pits with all lifts and leads. The exact

description contained therein reads as under: -

300-2 of MoRT&H specifications for Road & Bridge works – 2001”

1 Relevant portion of the Clause 12 of the Agreement is provided in the succeeding paras

2021:DHC:2627

O.M.P. (COMM) 489/2020