Dismissed

Brij Lal & Sons v. U.O.I & Ors.

Delhi HC18 Jul 2017FAO/304/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this first appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 concerning extra work valuation, the court affirmed the lower court's dismissal of objections under Section 34. Holding that the arbitrator's technical findings regarding concrete volume ratios were not erroneous or perverse, the court refused to act as an appellate court over factual conclusions.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed confirming the arbitrator's award rejecting the claim for extra payment regarding cement concrete ratios.

Brij Lal & Sons Vs U.O.I & Ors. — Arbitration | Delhi HC (2017)

¶1

*** IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI**

¶2

FAO No. 304/2007

18^th July, 2017

M/S BRIJ LAL & SONS

..... Appellant

Through: Appellant in person.

¶8

versus

¶9

UNION OF INDIA & ANR. ..... Respondents

¶10

CORAM:

¶11

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA

¶12

To be referred to the Reporter or not?

¶13

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

¶14

This first appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟) impugns the judgment of the court below dated 13.4.2007 by which the objections filed by the appellant under Section 34 of the Act have been dismissed against the Award of the arbitrator dated 10.8.2006. The only dispute raised before this Court with respect to the objections under Section 34 of the Act is with respect to item no.4 of the extra work done. It may be noted that appellant was awarded the work of

¶15

doing cross drainage at Road No.57 near subway in East Delhi.

¶16

Page 1 of 4

¶17

FAO No. 304/2007

¶18

After completion of work appellant/contractor claimed

¶19

payment for extra items of work done, and one such payment claimed is with respect to item no.4. This item no.4 has been decided by the Arbitrator against the appellant by holding that the work done of Cement Concrete (C.C) in the ratio of 1:5:10 is not of 94.23 cum as was the case of the appellant/contractor, but the work of Cement Concrete of 1:5:10 was only of 2.15 cum. The relevant portion of the

¶20

Award with respect to item no.4 reads as under:-

¶21

“Item 4: Against 52.92 cum of C.C. 1:3:6 paid by Department, contractor has claimed Nil. Against 2.15 cum of C.C. 1:5:10 paid by Department, contractor has claimed 94.23.cum. Respondent pointed out that contractor has quoted Rs.1,400/- per cum for C.C. 1:5:10 but Rs.900/- per cum for C.C. 1:3:6 and there is no reason for Department to go in for C.C. 1:5:10. However, the calculations of cross-sectional area in MB do not appear to be in order since Respondent agreed that C.C. work was projecting above pipe surface. Approximate calculation for sectional area of C.C. around pipe is as follows: Base: 2.1x 0.3=0.63 sqm Overall up to center of pipe: 2.1 x 0.75 = 1.575 Above center of pipe: 22/7 x 1.05 x 1.05/2= 1.732 Deduct for pipe 22/7 x 0.75 = (-) 1.768 Net area= 2.169 sqm Quantity for pipe length = 45.11 x 2.169 = 97.84 cum Add for manhole 2.60 x 1.5 x 0.3 = 1.17 cum Total quantity = 99.01 cum. As such, total quantity of 94.23 cum claimed by contractor is accepted. Amount of C.C 1:5:10 = 2.15 x 1400= 3,010 Amount of C.C. 1:3:6=92.08 x 900== 82,872 Total amount= Rs.85,882/Payment already made = Rs.50,638/Additional payment worked out= Rs.35,244/-.”

¶22

Page 2 of 4

¶23

FAO No. 304/2007

¶24

Arbitrator is a technical person as admittedly he was an engineer. The Arbitrator has held that though there is no dispute that total quantity of work done under item no.4 was of 94.23 cum but the work done of the Cement Concrete of 1:5:10 was only 2.15 cum and not 94.23 cum inasmuch as the balance work of 92.08 cum out of the total of 94.23 cum was done in the ratio of 1:3:6. This Court cannot sit

¶25

as an appellate court over the findings and conclusions of the Arbitrator and it is not even pointed out to this Court that there is any measurement book of the work showing that work done of 94.23 cum is done in the ratio of 1:5:10 instead of only 2.15 cum work done at 1:5:10 as recorded in the Award. I therefore do not find any error in

¶26

the Award which makes the Award illegal or perverse or in violation of the ingredients of Section 34 of the Act.

¶27

The court below has also held that the Arbitrator after considering respective cases, when he takes a view, a civil court hearing objections under Section 34 of the Act is not to sit as an appellate court to re-apprise the findings of facts and conclusions of the Arbitrator. I agree.

¶28

Page 3 of 4

¶29

FAO No. 304/2007

¶30

Though appellant relies upon a theoretical statement, however, a theoretical statement prepared and submitted during the course of work done by Union of India cannot change the fact that the final measurements recorded for the work show the work of Cement Concrete work done in the ratio of 1:5:10 only of 2.15 cum.

¶31

There is no merit in the appeal and the same is therefore

¶32

dismissed.

¶33

JULY 18, 2017/ ib VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J

¶34

Page 4 of 4

¶35

FAO No. 304/2007

Brij Lal & Sons v. U.O.I & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Brij Lal & Sons v. U.O.I & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ajay Singh Vs Kal Airways Private Limited & Ors.

Mrs Neelam Sahgal Alias Nellu Sahgal Vs Mr Seema Mehra & Ors.

Narain Malik Vs State

Smt Nidhi Verma Vs State & Anr.

Subhash Chandra Banerji Vs State of NCT of Delhi

Sarvesh Kumar Vs State of Delhi & Ors.