FAO(OS) No.78/2006 Page 1 of 3 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + FAO(OS) NO.78/2006 Date of Decision : February 03rd, 2009 D.D.A. ..... Appellant Through: MS. Monica Sharma, Advocate. versus M/S BASSI BUILDERS ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Raman Kapoor, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKUL MUDGAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI 1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be No allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the No Digest? % JUDGMENT (Oral) MUKUL MUDGAL, J. 1. This is an appeal challenging the order of the Learned Single Judge dated 10.11.2005. By the said judgment the Learned Single Judge affirmed the award made by the Arbitrator dated 05.10.2002 and dismissed the objections preferred by the appellant, except that the rate of interest on the awarded amount was reduced from 18 per cent per annum to 12% per annum. 2. The respondent was awarded the contract for construction of houses by the appellant at Kishangarh in terms of agreement FAO(OS) No.78/2006 Page 2 of 3 No.13/HD-XXI/A/82-83. The work was completed by the respondent, but disputes arose in respect of the amount payable to the respondent which were referred to the arbitration in terms of Clause 25 of the agreement. The Engineer member-DDA appointed Sh. A.P. Paracer as the Sole Arbitrator in terms of letter dated 27.04.1987 who rendered his award allowing the claims of the respondent to the extent mentioned in the award. The appellant being aggrieved by the said award filed his objections. 3. Before us the pleas of the appellant centered around Claim No.4 and pertain to the averment that the Arbitrator awarded damages upto the period 15.01.1988, whereas the work was completed earlier in June, 1984. This apprehension of the appellant is based on the following extract from the award: “The work was awarded to the Claimants in July 1982 with stipulated period of completion as one year. Accordingly the stipulated date of completion was 04.07.1983. However, the work was completed in June 1984, but the completion was recorded on 15.01.1988. The work was delayed on account of various hindrances for which the Respondents have granted extension of time without levy of compensation. No material evidence has been placed on record to substantiate that there had been any delay attributable to the Claimants. The cost of materials and labor increased during this extended period which is evident from the building cost indices circulated by the CPWD. After carefully considering the evidence adduced before me I have assessed that the claim is partially justified to the extend of Rs 7,28,923/-. The Respondents have made a payment of Rs. 1,17,015.55 for increase in FAO(OS) No.78/2006 Page 3 of 3 cost of materials under Clause 10 C of the Agreement. Further payment of Rs 3,781.73 has been allowed under Claim No. 3 for increase in labour wages under Clause 10 C of the Agreement. Therefore, the net increase payable to the Claimants works out to Rs 6,08,126/- only. I therefore, Award Rs 6,08,126/- in favour of the Claimants the claim.” 4. Therefore, the learned counsel for the respondent was asked to file the statement of Claim. The same has been filed. On a perusal of the same, we find that the Claim is confined to the period up to 27.04.1985. However, on a perusal of the award extracted above, we find that the Arbitrator has reduced the amount and restricted the Claim up to June 1984, the date when the work was completed. 5. Hence, we find that the Learned Single Judge has correctly dealt with the plea and affirmed the award. There is no infirmity in the judgment of the Learned Single Judge. Appeal stands dismissed. MUKUL MUDGAL, J. VIPIN SANGHI, J. FEBRUARY 03, 2009 dp