SRJ arbp-80-09.sxw 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ARBITRATION PETITION NO.80 OF 2009 Union of India ] Acting through The Divisional ] Railway Manager (WA), Western ] Railway, Mumbai Central, ] MUMBAI. ].. Petitioners V/s. M/s. Jeevat Construction ] 4, Manik Smuruti, 16th Road, ] Khar (W), Mumbai 400 052. ].. Respondents. Mr.Suresh Kumar for Petitioners. Mr. U.S.Samudrala for Respondents. CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA,J. DATE : 26th NOVEMBER,2009. JUDGMENT: 1. Heard Finally. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the Respondents on instructions, submits that the Respondents are not pressing claim no.2 of security deposit and claim no.10 about interest on the work done payment. The Petitioner has challenged the same only. In view of this, I am inclined to modify the award to the above reasons. In view of the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court, whereby the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed and in fact modified the awards under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation SRJ arbp-80-09.sxw 2 Act,1996 (for short "Act"). The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Delhi Development Authority v/s. R.S.Sharma and Company, New Delhi (2008) 13 Supreme Court Cases 80 has maintained the modified award. Even otherwise, there is no bar under section 34 of the Act to modify the award in situation like where the parties themselves not pressing the claim. Now at this particular point, it is difficult for Court to deny the modification and delay the proceedings further by quashing the award solely on this ground. The early disposal is main object of the said Act. 3. In view of this, I am inclined to modify the award as observed above. The claim no.2 and claim no. 10 are disposed off as not pressed. 4. With regard to the Counter Claim, there is a clear finding on the Counter Claim of the Petitioner as given in paragraph 6.2 which is reproduced hereunder:- The Claimants stated that Respondent did not submit any documentary proof & the details of break up of said claims. The Claimant requested payment of second running bill but the Respondents did not pay and therefore they could not be carrying out the work. As such the Respondent committed the breach by termination of the contract. Respondent s right to claim risk and cost stands forfeited as per 64 of Indian Contract Act. SRJ arbp-80-09.sxw 3 5. Considering the rival contentions as well as the reasonings so given, I see that there is nothing to interference in the proceedings. It is well established within the frame work of law. The award now modified as agreed to the extent of clause item nos. 2 and 10 as referred above and the rest of the award as well as reasonings are maintained. 6. The Petition is accordingly disposed of. 7. No costs. (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. )