Delhi District Court
Association Of Corporations & Apex ... vs M/S Reevanjali Furnishers (P). Ltd on 27 January, 2023
IN THE COURT OF SH. AKASH JAIN
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE-01
SOUTH-EAST DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS: NEW DELHI
ARBTN No:- 408/17
Association of Corporations & Apex Society of Handlooms v.
M/s Reevanjali Furnishers (P). Ltd.
Association of Corporations & Apex Society of Handloom
Handloom Pavilion
Near Gate No. 1, Pragati Maidan
Bhairon Marg, New Delhi
....... Petitioner/Objector
Versus
M/s Reevanjali Furnishers (P). Ltd.
B-77, Old Jasola Village, Near DDA Flats
Behind Apollo Hospital, New Delhi-110025
...... Respondent
Date of Institution : 17.04.2010
Date of Reserving Judgment : 27.01.2023
Date of Decision : 27.01.2023
JUDGMENT
Objection to the Arbitration Award dated 09.12.2009 under Section 34 r/w Section 28 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
1. The present application/petition had been preferred by the applicant/petitioner Association of Corporations & Apex Society of Handlooms (hereinafter, referred to as the 'petitioner') against non-applicant/respondent M/s Reevanjali Furnishers (P). Ltd. (hereinafter, referred to as 'respondent') under Section 34 of The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') to assail the award dated 09.12.2009 passed by Sh. Joginder Singh (Retired Engineer), Ld. Sole Arbitrator.
AKASH Digitally signed by AKASH JAIN ARBTN No:- 408/17 JAIN Date: 2023.01.27 16:56:28 +0530 Association of Corporations & Apex Society of Handlooms v. M/s Reevanjali Furnishers (P). Ltd. Page No. 1 of 16
2. Vide impugned award, Ld. Arbitrator had awarded a cumulative sum of Rs. 27,72,623/- along with interest @ 15% on the award qua claim no. A besides pendentelite and future interest.
3. The present petition was instituted on 17.04.2010 and notice of the same was issued to the respondent by Hon'ble Delhi High Court on 12.05.2010. It is pertinent to note that the notice issued was confined to the rate of interest as well as compensation on account of additional work. Appearance was thereafter, made on behalf of respondent on 16.12.2010 and reply was also filed. Pursuant to order dated 20.02.2017, Hon'ble Delhi High Court was pleased to transfer the present petition to Hon'ble District Judge, South-East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi as the value of claim awarded is less than one crore. Thereafter, Ld. District & Sessions Judge, South-East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi assigned the present matter to this Court vide order dated 24.04.2017.
BRIEF FACTS:
4. Before adverting to the rival contentions of the parties, it is imperative to briefly discuss the facts and circumstances which led to the institution of the present petition.
5. It is the case of petitioner that petitioner is an autonomous body under the Ministry of Textiles, Government of India and a channelising agency for the handloom products and goods manufactured by its members, which are State level handloom agencies. Vide advertisement dated 19.04.2000 the petitioner invited applications from interested parties for Digitally signed AKASH by AKASH JAIN Date: JAIN 2023.01.27 16:56:35 +0530 ARBTN No:- 408/17 Association of Corporations & Apex Society of Handlooms v. M/s Reevanjali Furnishers (P). Ltd. Page No. 2 of 16 modification/alteration work for Handloom Pavilion at Pragati Maidan for and on behalf of the Petitioner. After shortlisting the aspiring parties, the work order was finally placed to the respondent on 05.06.2000. It is averred that one of the main clauses contained in the said work order was:
"... No additional items of work shall be permitted without specific written order from the competent authority..."
6. It is averred that total contract awarded to the Respondent was for a sum of Rs. 34,30,656/- and the work to be executed alongwith the quantity to be used was specified in the work summary attached to the said work order. In terms of the said work order, an agreement dated 06.06.2000 was executed between the parties. Pursuant to clause 3 of the work order, any additional item of work which included any alteration, addition etc. were to be carried out by the respondent only after receiving written instructions/orders to the said effect from the competent authority. It is alleged that respondent carried out additional works and claimed an amount more than the contracted amount in contravention of clause 3 of work order dated 05.06.2000 and agreement dated 06.06.2000 entered into between the parties.
7. It is averred that respondent was required to get a completion certificate issued from the consulting Architect i.e. D. K.Associates (hereinafter referred to as 'Architect') after completion of the work. But, the same was neither obtained by the respondent nor forwarded to the petitioner. It is further averred that one undated completion certificate was filed by the respondent which is fabricated and objection in this regard was taken by the petitioner in its reply to the claim petition filed by the petitioner AKASH Digitally signed by AKASH JAIN ARBTN No:- 408/17 JAIN Date: 2023.01.27 16:56:41 +0530 Association of Corporations & Apex Society of Handlooms v. M/s Reevanjali Furnishers (P). Ltd. Page No. 3 of 16 before the arbitrator.
8. It is alleged that the work executed by the respondent was defective, the materials used were of poor quality and workmanship was shoddy. However, the petitioner continued to make on account payments to respondent without scrutinizing the same in the hope that respondent would rectify the defects. It was later realized that although the amount of work order was for a sum of Rs. 34,30,656/-, the quantum and amount of actual work executed in terms of the work order as well as agreement executed between the parties was to the tune of Rs.29,35,112.34/-. An amount of Rs. 36,55,000/- was admittedly paid to the respondent on account basis by the petitioner, as such, an excess sum of Rs.7,19,887.66/- stood paid to the respondent which is liable to be refunded to the petitioner. It is further alleged that the respondent failed to supply sample of material to be used in the execution of the work to the architect in contravention of the work order and agreement.
9. It is averred by the petitioner that respondent claimed that the work executed by it was complete in all respects and had been executed to the entire satisfaction of the Architect and hence claimed an additional sum of Rs. 8,25,671/- towards the balance outstanding dues payable to it, in addition to the amount of Rs.36,55,000/- already received by it. However, petitioner took a stand to not make any further payments to respondent in excess of Rs. 36,55,000/- already paid on account of defects in the work and contravention of the work order as well as agreement executed by the parties. Hence, the respondentDigitally invoked signed the Arbitration Clause AKASH by AKASH JAIN Date:
JAIN 2023.01.27 16:56:47 +0530 ARBTN No:- 408/17 Association of Corporations & Apex Society of Handlooms v. M/s Reevanjali Furnishers (P). Ltd. Page No. 4 of 16 as contained in Clause 7 of the said agreement and matter was referred to Arbitral Tribunal. Vide Award dated 09.12.2009, Ld. Sole Arbitrator, Sh. Joginder Singh (Retired Engineer) substantially allowed the claims filed by the respondent and dismissed the counter claims filed by the petitioner. Ld. Sole Arbitrator awarded a total sum of Rs.27,72,623/- in favour of the respondent along with interests while dismissing all the claims of the petitioner. For the sake of convenience, the break-up of claims awarded in favour of respondent is reproduced as under:
Claim No. A Payment due Rs. 8,25,671/-
Claim No. B Damages towards non- Rs. 5,84,000/-
payments
Claim No. C Damages towards loss of Nil
reputation
Claim No. D Damages towards mental Nil
agony
Claim No. E Cost of proceedings Rs. 3,23,350/-
Claim No. F Interest @ 24% p.a. Rs. 10,39,602/-
Total Rs. 27,72,623/-
GROUNDS & CONTENTIONS:
10. It is in this background that the petitioner has approached this Court and assailed the impugned award dated 09.12.2009 on primarily following grounds:
(i) That the impugned award dated 09.12.2009 is patently illegal, perverse and contrary to Section 28 r/w 34 of the Act;
(ii) That Arbitral Tribunal has interpreted certain provisions of the agreement executed between the parties contrary to the actual terms and understanding of the parties;
AKASH Digitally signed by AKASH JAIN JAIN Date: 2023.01.27 16:56:52 +0530 ARBTN No:- 408/17 Association of Corporations & Apex Society of Handlooms v. M/s Reevanjali Furnishers (P). Ltd. Page No. 5 of 16
(iii) That the impugned Award is opposed to public policy and hit by Section 34 (2)(b) ii of the Act;
(iv) That the Arbitral Tribunal failed to appreciate that the work executed by the respondent was defective, materials used were of poor quality and workmanship was shoddy;
(v) That the Arbitral Tribunal wrongly arrived at a finding that the recommendations of the Architect tantamounted to written instructions by the petitioner for carrying out additional work;
(vi) That the Arbitral Tribunal grossly erred in awarding a sum of Rs. 5,84,000/- to the respondent towards damages;
(vii) That the Arbitral Tribunal granted highly excessive and unreasonable interest @ 15% per annum on the claims of the respondent;
(viii) That the Arbitral Tribunal erred in dismissing counter claims filed by the petitioner;
(ix) That the Arbitral Tribunal committed an illegality in awarding a sum of Rs, 2,00,000 as cost of proceedings to the respondent.
11. In the light of grounds as mentioned above, Ld. Counsel for petitioner has prayed for setting-aside the impugned arbitral award dated 09.12.2009 passed by Ld. Sole Arbitrator Sh. Joginder Singh (Retired Engineer). In order to buttress his contentions, Ld. Counsel for petitioner relied upon the judgments of Delhi Development Authority v. R. S. Sharma & Company, 2008 (13) SCC 80; Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. v. Saw Pipes Ltd, 2003 (5) SCC 705, Hindustan Zinc Limited v. Friends Coal Carbionization, 2006 (4) SCC 445 etc.
12. Ld. Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand Digitally signed by AKASH JAIN AKASH Date:
JAIN 2023.01.27
16:56:58
+0530
ARBTN No:- 408/17 Association of Corporations & Apex Society of Handlooms v. M/s Reevanjali Furnishers (P). Ltd. Page No. 6 of 16 argued that the impugned award is well reasoned and does not warrant any interference because of the fact that the petitioner duly participated in the proceedings before Ld. Arbitral Tribunal, raised its defence and led evidence in support of the averments made in the written statement/counter claim. It is averred that Ld. Arbitrator passed a detailed Award after examining all the issues and considering entire oral and documentary evidence produced before him. It is averred that Section 34 of the Act is not in the nature of appeal and merits consideration only if the same is in conflict of Section 34 (2) of the Act. The respondent laid reference to the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ravindra Kumar Gupta & Company v. Union of India, 2010 (1) SCC 409; Arosan Enterprises Limited v. Union of India, 1999 (9) SCC 497 and Kwality Mftg Corporation v. Central Warehousing Corpn. 2009 (5) SCC 142 in support of their averments.
13. While relying upon the judgments of Associate Builders v. DDA, (2015) 3 SCC 49 and M/s Brij Lal and Sons v. Union of India, 2017 SCC OnLine Del 9931, Ld. Counsel for respondent argued that once the arbitrator takes a possible and plausible view from the material on record, then the Court hearing objections under Section 34 of the Act has no power to interfere with the Award because the Award can only be interfered with if it is against the contract between the parties or is against the law of the land or is so completely perverse that the Court feels obliged to interfere with the same on the ground of public policy.
14. It is averred by the respondent in the reply that the respondent executed the job award in terms of contract as back as Digitally signed AKASH by AKASH JAIN Date: ARBTN No:- 408/17 JAIN 2023.01.27 Association of Corporations & Apex Society of 16:57:04 +0530 Handlooms v. M/s Reevanjali Furnishers (P). Ltd. Page No. 7 of 16 in the year 2001 and admittedly the petitioner had been using the premises and enjoying the benefits of work executed by the respondent without making requisite payment to them. It is further averred that clause 5 of the agreement dated 06.06.2000 clearly stated that additional work could be carried out at the site subject to approval of the Architect concerned and all the additional works were duly carried out by the respondent after recommendations of the concerned Architect. As such, the grounds taken by the petitioner, that the impugned Award is in contravention to the terms of the contract between the parties, are not tenable. It is further averred that all the objections and grounds taken by the petitioner in the present petition were taken before Ld. Arbitral Tribunal, which cannot be looked into afresh under Section 34 of the Act. Thus, it is prayed that the present petition should be dismissed with heavy costs.
FINDINGS:
15. I have heard the rival contentions on behalf of both the parties and carefully perused the record.
16. Before adverting to the merits of the objections raised, it is imperative to place reliance upon the judgment of Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports v. Swiss Timing Ltd., 2019 SCC OnLine Del 10934, wherein Hon'ble Division Bench of Delhi High Court held as under:-
"... 19. We are also mindful of the law on interference by the courts in respect of findings of facts based on appreciation of evidence, returned by the Arbitral Tribunal. In Sutlej Construction Limited Vs. Union Territory of Chandigarh Digitally signed AKASH by AKASH JAIN Date:
JAIN 2023.01.27 16:57:11 +0530 ARBTN No:- 408/17 Association of Corporations & Apex Society of Handlooms v. M/s Reevanjali Furnishers (P). Ltd. Page No. 8 of 16 reported as (2018) 1 SCC 718 the Supreme Court has held as follows:-
"11. It has been opined by this Court that when it comes to setting aside of an award under the public policy ground, it would mean that the award should shock the conscience of the Court and would not include what the Court thinks is unjust on the facts of the case seeking to substitute its view for that of the arbitrator to do what it considers to be "justice". Associate Builders v. DDA, (2015) 3 SCC 49.
12. The approach adopted by the learned Additional District Judge, Chandigarh was, thus, correct in not getting into the act of reappreciating the evidence as the first appellate court from a trial court decree. An arbitrator is a chosen Judge by the parties and it is on limited parameters can the award be interfered with.
(Sudarsan Trading Co. v. State of Kerala [Sudarsan Trading Co. v. State of Kerala, (1989) 2 SCC 38; Harish Chandra & Co. v. State of U.P., (2016) 9 SCC 478 and Swan Gold Mining Ltd. v. Hindustan Copper Ltd., (2015) 5 SCC 739.
13. The learned Single Judge ought to have restrained himself from getting into the meanderings of evidence appreciation and acting like a second appellate court. In fact, even in second appeals, only questions of law are to be determined while the first appellate court is the final court on facts. In the present case, the learned Single Judge has, thus, acted in the first appeal against objections dismissed as if it was the first appellate court against a decree passed by the trial court."
"... 20. In Ssangyong Engineering Construction Co. Ltd. v. National Highways Authority of Inida reported as 2019 SCCOnline SC 677, the Supreme Court has reiterated the aforesaid view in the following words:-
35. What is clear, therefore, is that the expression "public policy of India", whether contained in Section 34 in Section 48, would now mean the "fundamental policy of Indian law" as explained in paragraphs 18 and 27 of Associate Builders (supra), i.e., the fundamental policy of Indian law would be relegated to the "Renusagar" understanding of this expression. This would necessarily mean that the Western Geco (supra) expansion has been done away with. In short, Western Geco (supra), as explained in paragraphs 28 and 29 of Associate Builders (supra), would no longer obtain, as under the guise of interfering with an award on the ground that the arbitrator has not adopted a judicial approach, the Court's intervention would be on the merits of the award, which cannot be permitted post amendment.
However, insofar as principles of natural justice are concerned, as contained in Section 18 and 34(2)(a)(iii) of the 1996 Act, these continue to be grounds of challenge of an award, as is contained in paragraph 30 of Associate Builders (supra).
Digitally signedAKASH by AKASH JAIN Date: ARBTN No:- 408/17 JAIN 2023.01.27 16:57:17 Association of Corporations & Apex Society of Handlooms +0530 Furnishers (P). Ltd. v. M/s Reevanjali Page No. 9 of 16
36. It is important to notice that the ground for interference insofar as it concerns "interest of India" has since been deleted, and therefore, no longer obtains. Equally, the ground for interference on the basis that the award is in conflict with justice or morality is now to be understood as a conflict with the "most basic notions of morality or justice". This again would be in line with paragraphs 36 to 39 of Associate Builders (supra), as it is only such arbitral awards that shock the conscience of the court that can be set aside on this ground.
37. Thus, it is clear that public policy of India is now constricted to mean firstly, that a domestic award is contrary to the fundamental policy of Indian law, as understood in paragraphs 18 and 27 of Associate Builders (supra), or secondly, that such award is against basic notions of justice or morality as understood in paragraphs 36 to 39 of Associate Builders (supra). Explanation 2 to Section 34(2)(b)(ii) and Explanation 2 to Section 48(2)(b)(ii) was added by the Amendment Act so that Western Geco (supra), as understood in Associate Builders (supra), and paragraphs 28 and 29 in particular, is now done away with.
38. Insofar as domestic awards made in India are concerned, an additional ground is now available under sub-section (2A), added by the Amendment Act, 2015, to Section 34. Here, there must be patent illegality appearing on the face of the award, which refers to such illegality as goes to the root of the matter but which does not amount to mere erroneous application of the law. In short, what is not subsumed within "the fundamental policy of Indian law", namely, the contravention of a statute not linked to public policy or public interest, cannot be brought in by the backdoor when it comes to setting aside an award on the ground of patent illegality...".
17. In the case of Laxmi Mathur v. The Chief General Manager, MTNL reported in 2000 (3) Arb. L.R. 684 it was held as under:-
"... 9. Arbitral award is not invalid merely because on the basis of some inferences and some arguments it may be alleged that Arbitral Tribunal has committed some mistake in arriving at its conclusion on merits of the dispute referred to it for adjudication.
10. When the Court is called upon to decide the objections raised by a party against the arbitral award, the jurisdiction of the Court is limited, as expressly indicated in section 34 of the Act and it has no jurisdictions to sit in appeal and to examine the correctness of the award on merits with reference to the material produced before the Arbitral Tribunal. The Court cannot sit in Digitally signed AKASH by AKASH JAIN Date:
ARBTN No:- 408/17 JAIN 2023.01.27 16:57:23 +0530 Association of Corporations & Apex Society of Handlooms v. M/s Reevanjali Furnishers (P). Ltd. Page No. 10 of 16 appeal over the views of the Arbitral Tribunal by re-examining and reappreciating the material.
12. The arbitral award is not open to challenge on the ground that the Arbitral Tribunal has reached to a wrong conclusion or has failed to appreciate the facts and evidence. It is well settled that the parties constitute the Arbitral Tribunal as the sole and final Judge of the disputes arising between them and they bind themselves as a rule to accept the arbitral award as final and conclusive. The arbitral award is not liable to be set aside on the ground that either on facts or in-law it is erroneous..."
18. Suffice it to say, vide order dated 12.05.2010 Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that the Architect had not appeared before the Arbitral Tribunal, as such, it would be difficult to accept the petitioner's contention that work had not been satisfactorily completed by the respondent. Thus, notice of the present petition to respondent was confined to the rate of interest as well as compensation on account of additional work. The contentions raised by the petitioner at points (iii), (iv), (vi), (viii) and (ix) therefore, do not merit any discussion.
19. With respect to points (i), (ii) and (v), in terms of ratio of judgments discussed above, this Court cannot sit in appeal nor can sift and weigh the material before the Ld. Arbitrator for such purposes. The contentions of petitioner, though, are not plausible on merits as well. Admittedly, a work order dated 05.06.2000 was issued by the petitioner to respondent to undertake the work of modification/alteration in handloom pavilion at Pragati Maidan for total sum of Rs. 34,30,656/-. Vide clause 3 of the said agreement, no additional work was permitted without specific written order from the competent authority. The relevant clause 3 of the work order is reproduced as under:-
Digitally signedAKASH by AKASH JAIN Date:
JAIN 2023.01.27 16:57:29 +0530 ARBTN No:- 408/17 Association of Corporations & Apex Society of Handlooms v. M/s Reevanjali Furnishers (P). Ltd. Page No. 11 of 16 "... 3. No additional items of the work shall be permitted without specific written order from the competent authority..."
20. It is pertinent to note that vide same work order M/s D. K. and Associates was appointed as consultant Architect by the petitioner to supervise the work of the respondent at every stage ensuring implementation of the project at the cost and rate duly approved. In addition to the aforesaid work order an agreement dated 06.06.2000 was also executed between both the parties vide which the petitioner, through consultant Architect, reserved to himself right to alter the drawings and nature of work of adding or omitting any items and in case of extra work carried out by the contractor, the petitioner bound himself to pay the charges for the same at the rate accepted by the contractor towards the bills raised by the said contractor. The relevant clause 5 of the said agreement is reproduced as under:-
".... Clause 5. The employer through the consultants/Architects reserves to himself the right of altering the drawings and nature of the work of adding to or omitting any items of work or having portions of the said carried out departmentally without prejudice to this contract and incase of extrawork carried out by the said contractors, for such changes and modifications the employer binds himself for him and his successors and / or nominee to pay the charges for the same at the rate accepted by contractor towards the bills raised by the said contractors..."
21. It is thus, clear that although clause (3) of the work order dated 05.06.2000 stipulated no additional work to be carried out by the contractor without specific written order from the competent authority i.e. petitioner, clause 5 of the agreement dated 06.06.2000 envisaged that additional work could be carried out by Digitally signed by AKASH JAIN AKASH Date:
JAIN 2023.01.27 16:57:35 +0530 ARBTN No:- 408/17 Association of Corporations & Apex Society of Handlooms v. M/s Reevanjali Furnishers (P). Ltd. Page No. 12 of 16 the contractor subject to the approval of petitioner through consultant Architect. Vide paragraph no 7 of the impugned Award, Ld. Sole Arbitrator reproduced relevant extract of the evidence of Mr. K. G. Singhal, who is the same Accounts Officer of the petitioner who had issued the work order in question to the respondent. The same is as under:-
"... A. "It is correct that for technical specifications, drawings, measurements and bills certifications, M/s D. K. Associates (architects), A-198, Defence Colony, New Delhi, were appointed for this Project. The respondents have not appointed any other person other than M/s D. K. Associates to provide technical specifications, drawings, measurements and bills certifications for the Project in question. It is correct that I have not placed copy of the tender document on record of this Arbitral Tribunal. It is correct that the respondent Corporation in terms of the agreement had the authority to add or delete any additional item at the Project.
It is correct that any addition or deletion of the items at the Project were to be used with the support and guidance of the consulting architect.
B. It is correct that architect after certification used to send the bill to me. I used to send the bill to the Chairman for approval without checking as they were running bills. Volunteers: I would submit the bills/certificates to the person senior to me.
It is correct that all the running bills used to have the measurement sheets duly approved by the architect. It is correct that the running bills submitted by the claimant and approved by the architect used to have additional items being used at site..."
22. Perusal of the aforesaid testimony clearly shows that all the running bills regarding work carried out by the respondent at the site including additional works were duly sent to the Accounts Officer of the petitioner by the respondent after being approved by the consulting Architect. The said bills were used to be sent by the Accounts Officer to the Chairman for approval. The witness further admitted that the said running bills with details of additional Digitally signed AKASH by AKASH JAIN Date: ARBTN No:- 408/17 JAIN 2023.01.27 16:57:41 Association of Corporations & Apex Society of Handlooms +0530Furnishers (P). Ltd.
v. M/s Reevanjali Page No. 13 of 16items were paid to the contractor/respondent, as received from the Architect being duly approved, without raising any question. The relevant excerpt of the testimony of the said witness as culled out by Ld. Sole Arbitrator in paragraph 'K' of impugned Award is also worth consideration:-
"... K. It is correct that we used to make the payment to the claimant on receipt of bills with the details of additional items.
It is correct that we never wrote any letter to the claimant to the effect that bills for additional items raised was not covered under the agreement and thus not payable. Volunteers: The running bills were being paid to the contractors as received from the architect duly approved without raising any question.
Question by the Arbitrator Q. The DNIT contains a number of items, while checking the bill a comparison is made, bill quantities vis-a-vis DNIT quantities and any additional items were possible to locate. Were you following this procedure and conveying to the claimant contractor?
A. The above procedure was not being followed and we did not point out any additional items to the claimant's contractor.
It is correct that I never used to point out to my Officers as to the bills for additional items raised by the claimant not according to the contract and thus not payable..."
23. Thus, it stands duly established that respondent had been carrying out the additional work at the site, which was approved by the consultant architect and the bills for such additional works were being approved by the petitioner in routine manner without raising any questions. Thus, the petitioner cannot claim at belated stage that the additional works carried out at the site by respondent were not approved by them. Ld. Counsel for respondent further relied upon letter dated 13.08.2001 (CW 1/9), AKASH Digitally signed by AKASH JAIN JAIN Date: 2023.01.27 16:57:47 +0530 ARBTN No:- 408/17 Association of Corporations & Apex Society of Handlooms v. M/s Reevanjali Furnishers (P). Ltd. Page No. 14 of 16 which letter was sent by the consultant Architect i.e. M/s D. K. & Associates to the petitioner and receipt of same was not denied by witness of petitioner Mr. K. G. Singhal. Vide this letter, it was admitted by the Architect that additional expenditure of Rs.12,20,000/- had been incurred by the respondent at the site, out of which additional items were of Rs. 6,18,000/- and balance Rs.6,02,000/- was due owing to quantity variation. It was specifically mentioned in the letter that whenever any additional item was used or employed, the contractor intimated to them at every point of time regarding such item along with its rate and tentative quantity. It was further mentioned that all the additional items passed in the final bill of contractor were supported with proper justification of rates. Thus, the findings of Ld. Sole Arbitrator regarding grant of dues qua additional work to respondent, do not warrant any interference. The argument of Ld. Counsel for petitioner that Arbitral Tribunal interpreted certain provisions of agreement in violation of terms of work order, is not tenable.
24. With respect to point (vii) i.e. award of simple interest under Claim (F) as well as future interest at 15% per annum, this Court is of the view that it is slightly on the higher side. In light of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Krishna Bhagya Jala Nigam Ltd. v. G. Harischandra Reddy, AIR 2007 SC 817, this Court reduces the rate of simple interest to 9% per annum on the sum of Rs.8,25,671/- (under Claim No. A) from 11th July 2001 up to the date of payment.
Digitally signed by AKASH JAIN AKASH Date:
JAIN 2023.01.27
16:57:55
+0530
ARBTN No:- 408/17 Association of Corporations & Apex Society of Handlooms v. M/s Reevanjali Furnishers (P). Ltd. Page No. 15 of 16 CONCLUSION
25. For the foregoing reasons, this Court holds that the impugned Award dated 09.12.2009 is a reasoned Award and does not suffer from any infirmity or error apparent on the face of record. The Award was well founded on the facts and law and clearly just and reasonable. The petitioner has failed to make out any case for interference with the impugned Award except for modification regarding rate of interest and the period as indicated above. The petition under Section 34 of the Act is accordingly dismissed. The parties shall bear their own costs.
26. File be consigned to record room after due Digitally signed compliance. AKASH by AKASH JAIN Date: JAIN 2023.01.27 16:58:03 +0530 ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT (AKASH JAIN) ON 27.01.2023 ADJ-01, SOUTH-EAST SAKET, NEW DELHI This judgment contains 16 pages and each paper is Digitally signed by me. signed by AKASH AKASH JAIN Date:
JAIN 2023.01.27
16:58:10
+0530
(AKASH JAIN)
ADJ-01, SOUTH-EAST
SAKET, NEW DELHI
ARBTN No:- 408/17 Association of Corporations & Apex Society of Handlooms v. M/s Reevanjali Furnishers (P). Ltd. Page No. 16 of 16