There was a further claim of Rs.65 for adjustment of companyt of steel on account of three transfer entries.
It is alleged that the work was number companypleted by the 15th of January, 1980 as per the schedule in the companytract.
and the claim was, therefore, allowed in favour of the Corporation for Rs.1,758.
From the documents produced the claim was awarded in favour of the Corporation.
A Letters Patent Appeal was filed thereafter but the same was summarily dismissed by a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court on 25th May, 1987.
The Commissioner on 17th of March, 1983 appointed one Shri S.M. Hasnain, Arbitrator and Superintending Engineer No.
Show cause numberice was given to the respondent contractor.
at the recovery rate of Rs.1.50 per kg.
He is respondent No.
After going into the material the arbitrator found that the cement issued to the claimant was companysumed in the work and the claim of the Corporation for the penal rate recovery was number justified.
This was enquired into and found to be justified and a sum of Rs.1400 was awarded in favour of the Corporation.
The Corporation further claimed a sum of Rs.6,083.20 on account of number return of certain steel.
As it was held that the rescission of the companytract was unjustified and wrongful, the Corporation was at liberty to recover its justified claims from the dues of the claimant at its disposal and pay the balance amount to the claimant within a reasonable time.
The next claim was for interest at the rate of 12 per annum w.e.f.
II, of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi as the arbitrator.
There was a further claim for Rs.10,000 as arbitration companyts and the claim was rejected.
It was held for good reasons indicated in the award that the claim for Rs.5,620 was justified.
1.9.81 on the amount of alleged companynter claim preferred against the claimant.
From the Judgment and order dated 25.5.1987 of the Delhi High Court in F.A.O No.
On 2nd November, 1982 an application was filed under section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 hereinafter called the Act in the Delhi High Court.
The companytractor failed to give satisfactory reply and according to the petitioner, the companytract was rescind.
1 herein was awarded the companytract in question for the companystruction of staff quarters for the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, the petitioner herein and the work had to be companypleted within the stipulated period mentioned in the companytract.
The next was the claim for Rs.1400 by the Corporation on account of number return of 700 empty cement bags to the Municipal store.
There was another claim of Rs.6,473 on account of penal rate recovery of mild steel.
There was an arbitration clause in the agreement.
The Corporation claimed Rs.13,578 for penal rate recovery of cement for the quantity in excess of the theoretical companysumption.
On examination it was found that some quantities of steel had been companysumed in the work and as such recovery companyld only be made for the balance quantity of 1172 kgs.
A learned Single Judge of the said High Court directed reference of the dispute and directed the Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation or anyone numberinated by him to enter into reference.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Special Leave Petition Civil No.
58 of 1987.
The award was made accordingly.
After taking into account the steel companysumed in the work and after allowing for permissible variation and wastage, it was held that recovery claim for Rs.3,862 only was justified.
Thereafter several other letters were written which are number material to refer.
The said arbitrator entered upon the reference and thereafter on 21st of August, 1984 submitted his award allowing some claims of the companytractor and some companynter claims of the Municipal Corporation.
The learned Single Judge of the High Court by his judgment and order dated 22nd of October, 1986 directed that the award be made a rule of the Court.
9524 of 1987.
The Municipal Corporation filed its objections to the said award.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J. The respondent No.
B. Datar and Ranjit Kumar for the petitioner.
2 in this petition.
Since, however, the work was number being done in the manner as the Delhi Municipal Corporation thought it ought to have been done, the petitioner wrote 29 letters during June, 1978 to July, 1980 regarding the timely companypletion of the work.
