Delhi High Court
D.D.A. & Ors. vs P.C. Sharma & Co. & Anr. on 2 February, 2009
Author: Mukul Mudgal
Bench: Mukul Mudgal, Vipin Sanghi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ FAO(OS) NO.143/2006 & C.M. No.4443/2006
Date of Decision: 02.02.2009
D.D.A. & ORS. ..... Appellants
Through: Ms. Monica Sharma, Advocate
versus
P.C. SHARMA & CO. & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKUL MUDGAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be
allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the
Digest?
% JUDGMENT (Oral)
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:
"9. 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disallowed or withdrawn or are based on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 & 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 toto.
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.
MUKUL MUDGAL, J.
VIPIN SANGHI, J. FEBRUARY 02, 2009 rsk