FAO(OS) 281/2001 Page 1 of 3 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + FAO(OS) NO.281/2001 Date of Decision : March 26, 2009 M/S S.S. JETLEY ..... Appellant Through : NEMO versus DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR. ..... Respondents Through : NEMO 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 appeal challenges the order of the learned Single Jude dated 13.02.2001 by which the learned Single Judge was pleased to uphold the award dated 15.06.1996, save and except the award in respect of claim No.3, which was rejected by the learned Single Judge. Claim No.3 was made by the appellant before the learned Arbitrator for Rs.1,60,000/- on account of less measurement and non-measurement of the works. 2. The learned Single Judge noted the objection of the DDA that FAO(OS) 281/2001 Page 2 of 3 the awarded Rs.89,800/- qua this claim which was based on the DDA accepting that some items due for payment and in respect of some others, were not due for payment as they were not claimed and no proof of execution of the related works was shown. 3. The claimant / appellant relied upon the document Annexure D in which the work done was submitted. The response to the document Annexure D was filed by the DDA as Exhibit R-77, pleading, inter alia, as follows: “In respect of claimed quantities where NIL has been shown under column No.-8, the claimant may be asked to be specific with detailed measurements. The reasons for not claiming these measurements during the execution of work be clarified. All the running payments were accepted without any protest or correspondence. The C-106 is dated 13.2.87 whereas 29th R/A bill paid on 6/86. The C-106 also does not incorporates any specific details of measurements claimed.” 4. The learned Single Judge held that in view of the said response by the DDA Exhibit R-77, the appellant claimant ought to have produced some documentary evidence that it had, in fact, executed these works. The only document relied upon by the appellant appeared to be a scored off, page (Exhibit R-152) from the measurement book. This document has not been signed by either of the parties. The learned Judge, therefore, held that the said document could not have been relied upon and that the appellant was required to prove by a positive documentary evidence that it had executed the works in respect of which it was claimed that there was less measurement or non-measurement. Consequently, since no documentary evidence was produced by the appellant claimant to FAO(OS) 281/2001 Page 3 of 3 demonstrate that the work was done and no less measurement was taken. The learned Single Judge set aside Claim No. 3 awarded by the learned Arbitrator. We have seen the pleas of the appellant, which demonstrate that no documentary evidence was, in fact, produced by the appellant save and except R-152 which was not signed by both the parties and in fact scored out. Consequently, we are satisfied that the reasoning of the learned Single Judge suffers from no infirmity. The appeal is therefore, dismissed. MUKUL MUDGAL, J. VIPIN SANGHI, J. MARCH 26, 2009 rsk