D.D.A. and Others vs P.C. Sharma and Co. and Another

The appeal is taken up for hearing with the consent of learned Counsel for the parties.

This appeal challenges the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 08.11.2005, dismissing the objection petition filed by the DDA against the award dated 24.06.1989 made by the sole arbitrator Shri A.P. Paracer, except in respect of claim No. 5, and reducing the rate of interest to simple interest @ 12% per annum.

The only argument before the learned Single Judge was in respect of claim Nos. 14, 16 & 17 and was confined before the learned Single Judge in the following term:

Learned Counsel for the Respondent also further fairly stated that other than claims No. 14, 16 & 17 either the claims have been disallowed or withdrawn or are based on appreciation of evidence, the same are not to be seriously contested. Thus the submissions were made only in respect of claims No. 14, 16 & 17 under one head. The grievance of the Respondent is that there is overlapping claims which have been awarded under these clauses.

The Appellant''s counsel has contended before us that the claim Nos. 14, 16 & 17 were overlapping and could not have been awarded separately. The learned Single Judge has dealt with the above issues and held as follows:

A. The claim No. 14, is founded upon the factum of prolongation of contract beyond the stipulated date of completion on account of non-fulfillment of the obligation by the DDA. The said claim is analogous to the claim arising under Clause 10CC incorporated by the DDA in subsequent contracts. Claim No. 14 dealt with increase in material and labour costs during the period beyond the stipulated date of completion of work under the contract.

B. Claim No. 17 is specific about the site expenses and other overheads incurred by the Respondent beyond the stipulated date of completion; and

C. Claim No. 16 is in respect of loss of profitability. Claim No. 16 was based on the premise that had the contract been concluded within the stipulated period the establishment and the energy of the contractor would have been put to execution of a new contract, which was denied to the contractor on account of use of manpower and resources for completion of the contract beyond the stipulated date on account of fault of the Appellant itself.

In our view, the aforesaid form three distinct heads of damages that a contractor would be legally entitled to claim, subject, of course, to the same being duly established, where the work gets prolonged due to the fault of the employer and not the contractor.

The learned Single Judge has distinguished the judgment relied upon by the Appellant in Union of India v. Jain Associates and Anr., (1994) 2 SCC 665 , and, in our view, correctly so. That was a case where the award was a non-speaking award, and the question being considered was whether the award suffered from non-application of mind, on account of the fact that there was overlapping claims which had been allowed in to.

The learned Counsel for the Appellant has failed to point out any fallacy in the reasons given by the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.