AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.
no",Particulars,Amount (in Rs.),,,
1.,"Payment due from January,
2001 to September 2004 i.e.,
@Rs.2,63,982/- per month for
45","1,18,79,190.00",,,
,"months.
(Rs.2,63,982/-x45)",,,,
2.,"Payment received from
January 2001 to February
2002 i.e. @Rs.2,06,619/- per
month as earlier passed for 14
months Rs.2,06,619/-x14","28,55,838.00",,,
3.,"Balance       Â
Amount      Du
      upto
September 2004","90,23,352.00
e",,,
4.,"Loss of other
business/Tenders","20,00,000.00",,,
5.,"Mental Agony/grave
harassment","5,00,000.00",,,
6.,Litigation Expenses,"1,11,000.00",,,
,"Total Amount of claim (Total
of S.No.3 to 6)","1,16,34,352.00",,,
,Add Interest,"@24%
            Â
Per
Annum",,,
The Arbitrator’s award in respect of each of the claims is as under: -,,,,,
“CLAIM No. (a):Rs.26,39,82/- per month of the bill as claimed by claimants.",,,,,
AND,,,,,
 CLAIM No. (b): Rs.90,23,352/- outstanding bills (i.e. upto September, 2004.)â€",,,,,
 On this claim the arbitrator awarded a sum of Rs.34,98,912/-.",,,,,
“CLAIM NO. (c) : Rs.20,00,000/- on account of loss of other business/tender.",,,,,
AND,,,,,
CLAIM NO. (d) : Rs.5,00,000/- for mental agony and the harassment.",,,,,
2.1 Â Finding of Arbitrator and Award:,,,,,
The claimants failed to establish claim No. (c) & (d) with documentary evidence. Further, these claims are of very indirect nature, which are not at all",,,,,
payable under 1... contract act except the loss of interest which is being dealt separately in Claim No. (1.... As such I hold that claimants are not,,,,,
entitled for these claims and I award ‘Nil’ amount claimants against Claim No.,,,,,
(c) & Claim No. (d).â€,,,,,
NIL award.,,,,,
“CLAIM NO. (e):Rs.1,11,000/- on account of litigation expenses.",,,,,
 3.1 Finding of Arbitrator & Award:,,,,,
Keeping in view over all circumstances, I consider reasonable and award of Rs.5,000/-",,,,,
 to claimants against this claim.â€,,,,,
 Litigation expenses Rs.5,000/- was awarded.",,,,,
Claim 1(e) and 1(f) â€" interest was claimed @ 24%. However, the arbitrator awarded interest in the following terms: -",,,,,
“CLAIM NO.(1.e): Interest @ 24% per annum on the above said amount.,,,,,
AND,,,,,
CLAIM NO.(f): Any other order/directions as the Ld. Arbitrator deems fit a proper in the interest of justice.â€,,,,,
4.1 Finding of Arbitrator and Award:,,,,,
In view of overall circumstances, I consider reasonable and award simple interest @ 10% per annum on Rs.2100867/- [39x127095 (from January",,,,,
2001 till March 2004 2855838 => 4956705-2855838 =2100867] i.e. the balance outstanding upto 31.3.20... awarded to claimants against claim No.1,",,,,,
w.e.f. 23.4.2004 (date of invocation arbitration ) till date of payment.,,,,,
I also award simple interest @ 10% per annum on the each set amounting Rs.127095 totaling 1398045 (11x 127095) becoming due at the end of each,,,,,
more beginning from payment of April 2004 w.e.f. 1.5.2004 and ending for payment February 2005 w.e.f. 1.3.2005 till the date of payment.â€,,,,,
In conclusion, the arbitrator held as under: -",,,,,
“5.1 NOW, THEREFORE, in view of above, I award Rs.35,03,912/- to the claimants, M/s Yasikan Enterprises (P) Ltd. against all, their claims",,,,,
and simple interest on Rs.34,98,912/- as awarded under para 4.1 of Claim No.(i) & (f) above. This is in full and final settlement of all the above claims",,,,,
of the claimants.â€,,,,,
The first submission of Ms. Jyoti Taneja, Ld counsel appearing for the Petitioner is that there was no arbitration clause with the company M/s",,,,,
Yasikan Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. The contract was awarded to the firm M/s Yasikan Enterprises, which was a sole proprietary concern. Accordingly in",,,,,
the absence of an arbitration agreement, the arbitration proceedings are void ab initio and the award is liable to be set aside. She relies on Delhi Iron",,,,,
and Steel Company Limited v. U.P. Electricity Board & Another (2002) 61 DRJ 280.,,,,,
Learned counsel for Respondent, on this issue, submits that the reference having been made by the Lieutenant Governor on the request of M/s",,,,,
Yasikan Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., the same does not deserve to be set aside. 11. As per Section 7 of the Act, every arbitration agreement has to be in",,,,,
writing between the parties. It also has to be signed by the parties. In the present case, there is no arbitration agreement signed between the Petitioner",,,,,
and M/s Yasikan Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. The company was not awarded the contract. The offer was submitted by M/s Yasikan Enterprises as a sole,,,,,
proprietary firm. It was signed by Mr. Jagdish Kumar as the sole proprietor.,,,,,
The company being a distinct legal entity from the sole proprietorship, the arbitration clause, does not apply devolve upon the company. Moreover, the",,,,,
arbitration clause is an independent clause which is not assignable. This is clear from a reading of Delhi Iron and Steel Company Limited (Supra).,,,,,
“17. So far as the arbitration clause is concerned it was held that this contract is personal in its character and incapable of assignment on that,,,,,
ground. However it is a settled law that an arbitration clause does not take away the right of a party of a contract to assign it if it is otherwise,,,,,
assignable.,,,,,
While distinguishing between two clauses of assignment the Supreme Court observed that a right of obligations under a contract cannot be,,,,,
,Job,Unit,"Â Â Â Job wise rates
Without   With
Material  Material",,
,,,,,
,1.,2.,3.,  4.,
a.,Sweeping in covered area,"Per
sq.
mtr.",Rs.2.30,Rs.2.75,
b.,"Sweeping,
                 Â
Washing,
Scrubbing, swabbing etc. and cleaning of
articles
lying their in",-do-,Rs.0.90,Rs.1.40,
c.,"Sweeping open space like roads, courtyards,
garage etc.",-do-,Rs.1.10,Rs.1.10,
d.,"Cleaning open space like lawn, playground
etc. swept extensively but which are kept
clean by picking papers-bits etc. and by
partial sweeping, where necessary.",-do-,Rs.0.45,Rs.0.45,
e.,"Cleaning latrines, bathrooms, urinals etc.
including the dressing rooms, passages etc.
attached thereto and mirrors, dressing tables,","Per
100
items",Rs.0.90,"Rs.1.75
          Â
per
itms",
,"and           oth
            articles
contained therein",e r,,,
f.,"Collection, Segregation and disposal of
garbage","Per
Qtl.",,Free of Cost,
,,,,"tender document.
These items are covered
under Item (a) cleaning in
covered areas.]",
Extra
Item-2
Cleaning
of glazing
&
inside
cladding
etc.","5946.47
Sqm","Not mentioned
in
             Â
the
tender document",8325.06,"Not agreed. [Note-
          Â
[This item was not a part of
tender document.
          Â
It has
          Â
been added  by
arbitrator
There is no such extra
items for cleaning etc.
mentioned either in the
scope of work or in the
schedule of rates of the
tender document.]",Nil