O.M.P. 426/2003 Page 1 of 4 F-48 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + O.M.P. 426/2003 & I.A. No. 10776/2003 GAS AUTHORITY OF INDIA ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Naveen Kumar, Advocate. versus A.K. GUPTA AND CO. ..... Respondent Through: Mr. R.P. Kaushik, Advocate. % Date of Decision : May 07, 2010 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN 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. J U D G M E N T MANMOHAN, J (ORAL) 1) The Petitioner awarded a Contract to the Respondent for construction of 45 residential flats in the district of Etawa (U.P) through Work Order dated 18.6.1996 for a Contract Price of Rs.3,31,75,000/-. 2) The work was completed by the Respondent-Claimant on 20.1.1998 and the Final Bill was raised on 25.6.1998. O.M.P. 426/2003 Page 2 of 4 3) Respondent-Claimant raised certain claims which were not entertained by the Petitioner. As such, disputes and differences arose between the parties, the Respondent invoked arbitration vide letter dated 23.1.2002. 4) During the pendency of the arbitration proceedings, the Dispute Avoidance & Resolution Team (“DART”) constituted by the Petitioner had reached a broad settlement with the Respondent and the terms of settlement were duly recorded in a Minutes of Meeting dated 26.05.2003. 5) Based on the said settlement proposals, the Respondent-Claimant had raised its final claims vide letter dated 29.05.2003, accepting the settlement terms and also giving-up some of its claims. On the basis of the said letter, the Respondent-Claimant thereafter revised its claims before the Ld. Arbitrator, and filed its Amended Statement of Claim on 14.07.2003. 6) The Ld. Arbitrator reserved the Award on 14.07.2003 itself and finally made his Award on 2nd August, 2003, which has been challenged by the Petitioner principally on the grounds that the appointment of the Ld. Arbitrator was not in accordance with the agreed procedure under the arbitration clause and that it has not been granted adequate opportunity to present its defence in the arbitration proceedings. O.M.P. 426/2003 Page 3 of 4 7) I have heard Ld. Counsel for the parties. The fact that there was a settlement reached between the parties as recorded in the Minutes of Meeting dated 26.05.2003 of DART is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the Respondent had accepted the amounts agreed to be paid to it by the Petitioner in terms of the said settlement. The Respondent admits that vide its letter of 29.05.2003, while claiming payment of the said amounts, it had given-up some of its claims, but which have also been awarded in the impugned Award along with the agreed claims. In view of the above position claim of the respondent/claimant as approved by DART and interest on the delayed payment as claimed by the respondent/claimant on strength of clause 26(d) of the contract is as under: Claim no Nature of claims Amount claimed by respondent before Arbitrator Amount settled by DART 1. Balance Final bill 6,02,655 6,02,655 2. Retention for horticulture 21,250 21,250 3. Wrong full recoveries 1,40,323 1,40,323 4. Escalation Balance 3,64,766 3,64,766 5. Bonus on early completion 80,000 80,000 6. Interest on delayed payment & non payment 14,724 14,724 7. Interest on delayed payment & non payment on R.A. 1305831 Waived O.M.P. 426/2003 Page 4 of 4 bills 8. Pedenlite interest @ 18% Waived 9. Cost of arbitration 100000 Waived 10. Total 12,23,718 11. Plus interest claimed by respondent as per clause 26(d) of contract @12% on total amount from 16-06-2003 till the date of actual payment 8) The terms of settlement reached between the parties on 26.05.2003 would be binding against them, and more so, the Respondent-Claimant could not have claimed the amounts which it had itself given-up in its letter of 29.05.2003, and at the same time the petitioner cannot escape from its admitted liability as acknowledged by the DART which was constituted by the petitioner itself. 9) In view of the above, the impugned Award is modified to the extent that Claims No. 7, 8 and 9 are not payable to the Respondent- Claimant. The other amounts awarded in favour of the Respondent- Claimant shall be paid by the Petitioner along with interest @ 12% as agreed under Clause 26 d of the Contract between the parties. No orders as to cost of the proceedings. MANMOHAN,J MAY 07, 2010 js