NARESH KUMAR GUPTA Vs. M.C.D.
LAWS(DLH)-2013-2-74
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Decided on
February 12,2013
NARESH KUMAR GUPTA
Appellant
VERSUS
M.C.D.
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
PURAN CHAND NANGIA V. AVIATION EMPLOYEES [REFERRED TO]SATYA PRAKASH V. MCD [REFERRED TO]
BIRAT CHANDRA DAGARA VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ORS [REFERRED TO]
SATYA PRAKASH V. MCD [REFERRED TO]
MAJOR RETD INDER SINGH REKHI VS. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. L K AHLUJA AND CO [REFERRED TO]
PANCHU GOPAL BOSE VS. BOARD OF TRUSTEES FOR PORT OF CALCUTTA [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. MOMIN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF ORISSA VS. DAMODAR DAS [REFERRED TO]
ISPAT ENGINEERING AND FOUNDRY WORKS VS. STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
OIL AND NATURAL GAS COMMISSION VS. SAW PIPES LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS. ALLIED CONSTRUCTIONS [REFERRED TO]
BOC INDIA LTD VS. BHAGWATI OXYGEN LTD [REFERRED TO]
J C BUDHRAJA VS. CHAIRMAN ORISSA MINING CORPORATIONLTD [REFERRED TO]
SWARAN SINGH VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
ORIENTAL STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED VS. RITES [REFERRED TO]
R K ANEJA VS. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY [REFERRED TO]
UNITY ENGINEERS VS. ITPO [REFERRED TO]
J K ANAND VS. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. SIMPLEX CONCRETE PILES INDIA [REFERRED TO]
ANANT RAJ AGENCIES VS. D D A [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)The appellant, a contractor, participated in the tender for construction of Municipal Staff Quarters floated in June, 1991 and was successful. Subsequently, a work order dated 16.01.1992 was issued in favour of the appellant for an estimated cost of Rs.1,20,77,499/-. The work had to commence on 25.01.1992 and was required to be completed within a period of 18 months.
(2.)The work actually commenced only on 08.01.1993 and was completed on 10.01.1997. It is relevant to note that the time for completion of the contract was extended till the aforementioned date without levy of any penalty. The appellant was required to submit a final bill in terms of clause 7 of the agreement but the undisputed fact is that no such final bill was submitted. On the other hand, the appellant claimed that it was addressing various communications to the respondent for payment of the amount, but to no avail (these letters are disputed by the respondent). The fact, however, remains that on 12.12.2001 a payment of Rs.18,72,839/- was made to the appellant. The appellant called upon the MCD vide its letter dated 15.01.2002 requesting payments alleged to be outstanding to be released within 15 days and upon failure of the same, invoked the arbitration clause on 18.02.2002. In view of the failure in appointment of an arbitrator, the appellant filed an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ('the said Act' for short) and in those proceedings, by an order dated 25.03.2003, the learned single Judge of this Court (as he then was) appointed Justice H.C.Goel (Retired) as the sole arbitrator.
(3.)The learned arbitrator commenced arbitration proceedings and made and published an award dated 27.03.2006. The case placed by the appellant before the learned arbitrator was that there were defaults on the part of respondent which resulted in delay of the work. The burden to prepare the final bill was sought to be put on the respondent and the appellant claimed further escalation charges as per clause 10CC of the agreement for work done beyond the original stipulated date of the contract.
(2.)The work actually commenced only on 08.01.1993 and was completed on 10.01.1997. It is relevant to note that the time for completion of the contract was extended till the aforementioned date without levy of any penalty. The appellant was required to submit a final bill in terms of clause 7 of the agreement but the undisputed fact is that no such final bill was submitted. On the other hand, the appellant claimed that it was addressing various communications to the respondent for payment of the amount, but to no avail (these letters are disputed by the respondent). The fact, however, remains that on 12.12.2001 a payment of Rs.18,72,839/- was made to the appellant. The appellant called upon the MCD vide its letter dated 15.01.2002 requesting payments alleged to be outstanding to be released within 15 days and upon failure of the same, invoked the arbitration clause on 18.02.2002. In view of the failure in appointment of an arbitrator, the appellant filed an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ('the said Act' for short) and in those proceedings, by an order dated 25.03.2003, the learned single Judge of this Court (as he then was) appointed Justice H.C.Goel (Retired) as the sole arbitrator.
(3.)The learned arbitrator commenced arbitration proceedings and made and published an award dated 27.03.2006. The case placed by the appellant before the learned arbitrator was that there were defaults on the part of respondent which resulted in delay of the work. The burden to prepare the final bill was sought to be put on the respondent and the appellant claimed further escalation charges as per clause 10CC of the agreement for work done beyond the original stipulated date of the contract.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.