FAO (OS) 147/2005 Page 1 R-34 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision : April 22, 2009 + FAO(OS)147/2005 SH.KIRPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA ... Appellant Through Mr. Vivekanand, Adv. versus DDA .... Respondent Through : Mr. Pawan Mathur, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKUL MUDGAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J. MEHTA 1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No % JUDGMENT (ORAL) MUKUL MUDGAL, J. 1. With consent of counsel for the parties, the appeal is taken up for hearing. 2. The learned counsel for the appellant has challenged the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 25th January, 2005 whereby the objections preferred FAO (OS) 147/2005 Page 2 by the claimant/appellant to the award of the Arbitrator were dismissed and the claim preferred by the appellant was rejected. 3. The learned Single Judge has held that the Arbitrator has correctly decided the principal dispute that the appellant had not taken possession of the site and had not carried out the works as per the defence of the DDA that the appellant never took possession of the site much less did he execute the work, and on the contrary the DDA was compelled to get the work from another agency/contractors. 4. The Arbitrator passed the award in favour of the respondent by dismissing the claims and came to the conclusion that the appellant had not been able to establish that the contract was signed/entered into by him and nor was it performed so as to claim payment. The learned counsel relied upon Exhibits C-1, C-4 to C-7, which according to the appellant were letters, sent to the respondent. The memo of the appeal filed by the appellant itself shows that three of the letters in fact were disputed by the respondent-DDA. Besides we have rightly asked from Mr. Vivekanand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, as to show whether an agreement were entered into by the appellant as the Arbitrator has found that no agreement was entered into. The only response of the learned counsel was that the original of the agreement is with the respondent and though summoned was never produced. FAO (OS) 147/2005 Page 3 3. In our view, there is no question of producing the original of an agreement by the respondent DDA, whose stand was that such an agreement was never entered into. We have asked the counsel for the appellant as to whether he has produced the copy of the said agreement entered into by the DDA and the appellant, but, the counsel was unable to refer to or produce any such document. 4. Thus, we are fully satisfied with the conclusion of the Arbitrator and no interference is warranted in appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge affirming the award. MUKUL MUDGAL,J VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J APRIL 22, 2009 mm