{"id":156061,"date":"1999-09-14T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1999-09-13T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-s-jetley-vs-delhi-development-authority-on-14-september-1999"},"modified":"2018-04-27T21:34:22","modified_gmt":"2018-04-27T16:04:22","slug":"s-s-jetley-vs-delhi-development-authority-on-14-september-1999","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-s-jetley-vs-delhi-development-authority-on-14-september-1999","title":{"rendered":"S.S. Jetley vs Delhi Development Authority on 14 September, 1999"},"content":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court<\/div>\n
S.S. Jetley vs Delhi Development Authority on 14 September, 1999<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1999 VAD Delhi 741, 81 (1999) DLT 681, 2000 (52) DRJ 330<\/div>\n
Author: M Shamim<\/div>\n
Bench: M Shamim<\/div>\n<\/p>\n
<\/pre>\n
JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
 Mohd. Shamim, J. <\/p>\n
1. Shri Suresh Mehta, Superintending Engineer, was appointed as an arbitrator. He filed his award before this Court dated August 21, 1996. The  same was registered as Suit No. 2151-A of 1996. Notices were issued to both  the parties in the said suit with regard to the filing of the award. The  petitioner herein did to prefer any objections against the said award while  the Delhi Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as the respondent)  filed objections against the same vide I.A. No. 1149\/97.\n<\/p>\n
2. It has been submitted for and on behalf of the objector that the  learned arbitrator had no jurisdiction to entertain the claims raised by  the petitioner as the same were hopelessly barred by time. This instead of  making an award in favour of the petitioner with regard to the said claims  the same should have been rejected. The work in question was complete in  August, 1989 whereas the arbitration was invoked vide letter dated May, 16,  1994. It is thus obvious that the claims were barred by limitation at the  time of the invocation of the arbitration agreement. Most of the claims  raised by the claimant were never raised during the currency of the agreement and even after the completion of the work. The said claims are an  after-thought and mala fide. The impugned award is in violation of Clause  25 of the agreement whereunder the arbitrator was required to give reasons  for arriving at his conclusions. The arbitrator has not given any reasons  whatsoever in support of the claims awarded. He did not record any evidence  with regard to the claims before awarding the same. The impugned award has  been given in violation of the principles of natural justice. The award is  contrary to the record and the evidence. The arbitrator has completely  ignored various points in controversy involved in the present case. The socalled reasons given by the arbitrator in support of the claims awarded are  no reasons at all and are totally extraneous to the points of differences  in between the parties. The arbitrator has failed to apply his mind to the  points in controversy. The arbitrator has misconducted himself and the  proceedings. Hence, the two award is liable to be set aside.\n<\/p>\n
3. While countervailing the said submissions it has been submitted for  and on behalf of the petitioner that all the claims were well within time.  Hence the same were rightly entertained by the arbitrator. The arbitrator  is under no obligation to write a reasoned award just like a Court. It is  sufficient enough if he gives some of the reasons for awarding a particular  claim in favour of a particular party. The impugned award is a well reasoned award based on evidence. It is wrong to allege that the arbitrator  has misconducted himself and the proceedings. Thus it has been prayed that  the impugned award alluded to above be made a rule of the Court.\n<\/p>\n
4. Learned counsel for the respondent has raised a preliminary objection  with regard to the maintainability of the claims before the learned arbitrator. According to the learned counsel the work in the instant case was  completed in August 1989. The petitioner herein applied for appointment of  an arbitrator in terms of the arbitration clause as per the agreement on  May 16, 1994. Thus they invoked the arbitration clause after the expiry of  statutory period of limitation i.e. more than three years. The learned  counsel has contended that Art. 55 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is the  relevant article which would be applicable to the facts of the present  case. The period of limitation as prescribed by the said article is three  years from the date of cause of action. Hence the claims were clearly  barred by time and the learned arbitrator should have held as such. The  learned counsel further contends that the arbitrator was under an obligation to take notice of the fact that the claims were barred by time irrespective of the fact whether such a plea was taken before the arbitrator or  not. In this connection the learned counsel has sought help from Section 3  of the Limitation Act which is in the following words: 3. Bar of limitation. – (1) Subject to the provisions contained in Sections 4 to 24 (inclusive), every suit instituted, appeal preferred, and application made after  the prescribed period shall be dismissed although limitation has not been  set up as a defense.       (2) ……    (a) ………..    (b) …………    (c) ……….”\n<\/p>\n
5. He has then in support of his argument referred to Section 37 of the  Arbitration Act which reads as under: “(1) all the provision of the Indian  Limitation Act, 1908 shall apply to arbitration as they apply to proceedings in Court.       (2) ………    (3) ……..    (4) ………\n<\/p>\n
6. The learned counsel thus contends that a duty was cast on the shoulders of the arbitrator before awarding any claims to ascertain the fact as  to whether the claims were within limitation. However, no notice of the  fact was taken that the claims in the instant case were hopelessly barred  by time.\n<\/p>\n
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Sharma has urged to the contrary. According to him, in case a plea with regard to limitation is not  raised before the arbitrator in that eventually a party not doing so cannot  be permitted to take assistance from the provisions of the Limitation Act  during the proceedings for making the award a rule of the Court. In the  alternative, it has been urged for and on behalf of the petitioner that the  claim of the petitioner was well within time and the same was rightly  awarded.\n<\/p>\n
8. A close scrutiny of Section 3 of the Limitation Act reveals that the  same relates to a suit instituted, appeal preferred, an application made  after the prescribed period shall be dismissed, although the limitation has  not been set up as a defense. Thus a Court has been enjoined to dismiss a  suit, appeal and an application whichever might be the case, in case the  same has been preferred after the expiry of the statutory period of limitation irrespective of the fact whether limitation is pleaded by way of  defense or not. However, the proceedings before an arbitrator are neither a  suit nor an appeal nor an application before a Court. It is well known the  proceedings before an arbitrator are quasi judicial in nature. They are not  judicial proceedings. Thus a party before an arbitrator in order to take  advantage of the provisions of the Limitation Act must plead the bar of  limitation. In the absence of any such plea it would be presumed that the  bar of limitation was condoned and the party not pleading the same did not  want to take the benefit of the same.\n<\/p>\n
9. My above view finds support from the observations of a Division Bench  of the Patna High Court as reported in Union of India Vs. B.C. Basu and  another, , “…. This much is, however, undisputed that neither any objection was taken by the appellant at the time of  making of the reference to the arbitrators that a part of the claim was  barred by limitation nor any such objection was raised by them before the  arbitrators. For the first time the objection was taken before the Court  after the award was filed. As the maxim that limitation bars only the  remedy but does not destroy the right is well known, no illegality was  therefore committed by the arbitrators in entertaining the claim of the  contractors for the said period”.\n<\/p>\n
10. In a case as reported in Oil & Natural Gas Commission Vs. Ms\/. Clelland Engineers S.A., , the plea with regard to  limitation being barred by time was raised before the arbitrator in the  following words : “The present arbitration itself is barred by limitation  as the alleged claims are relating to the work done in 1981-82″. Even then  the Hon’ble Supreme Court opined that it was a bald statement and cannot be  treated as a foundation for raising a plea with regard to limitation before  the Court. I am tempted here to cite a few lines from para 5 of the said  judgment. ” This is a very bald statement without setting out the details  as to how the claim made by the respondent before the Arbitrators have  become barred by the limitation particularly when the stand of the respondent is that they had running bills and payments were made from time to time  and an account has to be taken as to what amount become due and when; the  same has to be worked out. Whether all such details have to be worked out  and whether the transaction between the appellant and the respondent did  not become complete until the payment of final amount are matters of adjudication. Thus, it becomes very difficult to appreciate that the plea  raised before the Arbitrators was sufficient to meet the situation to  defeat the claim on the bar of limitation. Therefore, we do not think that  we can examine the matter in the light suggested now by the learned counsel  for the appellant when no foundation has been laid in the course of the  proceedings before the Arbitrators either in the pleadings or in the evidence. We are, therefore, of the view that the High Court was justified in  dismissing the appeal against the decree passed in terms of the award”.\n<\/p>\n
11. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand has placed reliance in support of his contention on the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as reported in Panchu Gopal Bose Vs. Board of Trustees for Port  of Calcutta, . I have very carefully examined the facts of  the said case, yet I am of the view that the said authority is not at all  applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. According to  the facts of the said case the petitioner slept over his rights for a  period of ten years. After laying his claim in the year 1979 he did not  raise even a tiny finger of protest. For the first time it was on November,  28, 1989 that he issued the notice to the respondent to refer the case to  arbitration. I am tempted here to cite a few lines from the said judgment  to illustrate the above point.”…….. even assuming that the petitioner  had put forward his claim in July 1979 and the respondent has not acted  thereon till November 28, 1989 for long 10 years he did not move his little  finger to approach the Engineer and later the Court. For the first time on  November, 28, 1989 he issued notice to the respondent to refer the case for  arbitration. ….. On this own showing cause of arbitration has arisen in  July 1979, the petitioner did not take any action from then. On the other  hand when notice was issued in November 1989 the respondent immediately  approached the court and sought its leave to rescind the agreement explaining the circumstances. The court exercised the jurisdiction in permitting  the respondent to revoke the arbitration agreement …….”.\n<\/p>\n
12. The other authorities which were placed reliance upon the learned  counsel for the respondent with regard to the plea of limitation are:\n<\/p>\n
 (i) M\/s. Jhabbu Mal Jang Bahadur Vs. Nanak Chand Aggarwal and   another, AIR 1992 Delhi 55;\n<\/p>\n
 (ii) Major (Retd.) Inder Singh Rekhi Vs. Delhi Development Authority, ;\n<\/p>\n
 (iii) State of Orissa and Anr. etc. Vs. Sri Damodar Das, AIR   Supreme Court 941.\n<\/p>\n
13. None of the said authorities is of any use to the respondent as the  facts of the said judgment were altogether different from the facts of the  present case.\n<\/p>\n
14. Admittedly in the instant case the respondent did not raise any plea  with regard to limitation before the learned arbitrator. They neither did  so orally nor by way of pleadings. Hence they cannot be permitted to do so  now before this Court.\n<\/p>\n
15. There is another side of the picture. The work in the instant case was  admittedly completed on August, 31, 1989. The petitioner herein approached  the Executive Engineer for payment and for release of the amount of the  bank guarantee vide letter dated March 17, 1990 (vide C-48). Close on the  heels of the said letter yet another letter was written which is C-49. It  is dated December 31, 1990. Yet another letter dated September 28, 1991 was  written on account of the failure of the respondent to make the payment  (vide C-50). The respondent in reply to the said letters wrote to the  petitioner a letter dated December 26, 1991. The petitioner replied to the  said letter vide letter dated January 7, 1992 (C-51) wherein it was specifically mentioned that the department was not interested to make payment and  was interested to drag the matter. The petitioners’s letter dated January  7, 1991 was replied to by the respondent through their letter dated January  20, 1992 (C-53). It was through this letter that the respondent rejected  the claim of the petitioner. It was further observed in the said  letter” … what remains is the amount regarding disputed items which are  under process of setting. So where is the dispute that you have been crying  about”. The petitioner wrote yet another letter dated September, 6, 1993  (C-54), but to no avail. It was in the above circumstances that the petitioner sought reference of the disputes to an arbitrator vide letter dated  May 16, 1994. Thus if the period of limitation is computed from the letter  dated January 20, 1992 then the petitioner were well within their right to  seek reference of disputes to arbitration within three years. They could  have done by January 20, 1995. Yet they invoked the arbitration clause on  May 16, 1994. Hence it cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that  the claims of the petitioner are barred by time.\n<\/p>\n
16. Learned counsel for the respondent Mr. Shailesh Kapoor has contended  that the learned arbitrator had misconducted himself and the proceedings.  Hence the impugned award dated August 21, 1996 is liable to be set aside.  According to the learned counsel the learned arbitrator was under an obligation to give a reasoned award (vide Cl. 25 of the agreement). However, he  has not done so. He has not given out any reasons for arriving at his  conclusions. The findings of the learned arbitrator are perverse and not  borne out from the record. Thus the impugned award is liable to be set  aside. I am unable to agree with the learned counsel.\n<\/p>\n
17. It is a well established principle of law that an arbitrator is not  required to write a detailed judgment even in those cases where he is  required to give reasons for his findings. It would be considered sufficient enough if one can discern the trend of his thoughts from the observations made in the award. The underlying idea of the Arbitration Act is to  simplify the procedure and to quicken the pace of the disposal. This would  not be possible in case an arbitrator is expected to act like a Civil Court  and to write out detailed judgments. The above view was given vent to by  their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Vs.  Indian Carbon Ltd. . “In this case,  however, we are in agreement with the High Court of Bombay that reasons  were stated in the award. … These are the reasons for giving the award.  No error of law was pointed out in those reasons. Indeed no proposition of  law was stated in the aforesaid reasons, which could be objected to as an  error of law. There was, however, no error of fact. It was a possible view  to take. It could not be urged that it was an impossible view to take. The  arbitrator has made his mind known on the basis of which he had acted;  that, in our opinion, in sufficient to meet the requirements even if it be  reasons should be stated in the award. It is one thing to say that reasons  should be stated and another thing to state that a detailed judgment be  given in support of an award. Even if it be held that it is obligatory, to  state the reasons, it is not obligatory to give a detailed judgment. This  question was considered by the Court of Appeal in England in Bremer Handelsgesellschaft Vs. Westzucker, (1981) 2 Lloyd’s Law Rep. 130.”\n<\/p>\n
18. It was further observed (vide para 10).”The reasons that are set out  must be reasons which will not only be intelligible but also deal with the  substantial points that have been raised. When the arbitration clause  required the arbitrator to give a reasoned (award) and the arbitrator does  give his reasons in the award, the sufficiency of the reasons depends upon  the facts of the particular case. He is not bound to give detailed reasons.  The Court does not sit in appeal over the award and review the reasons. The  court can set aside the award only if it is apparent from the award that  there is no evidence to support the conclusions or if the award is based  upon any legal proposition which is erroneous”.\n<\/p>\n
19. When an arbitrator is called upon to interpret a particular contract,  as is the case in the instant case, in that eventuality his findings with  regard to the interpretation of the said contract cannot be assailed simply  because the contract could be construed in a different manner. The Court  does not sit in appeal over the findings of the arbitrator. It was so held  by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a latest decisions as reported in Himachal  Pradesh State Electricity Board Vs. R.J. Shah and Company, : From the aforesaid decisions of this Court, and the last  one in particular, it is clear that when the arbitrator is required to  construe a contract then merely because view may be possible the court  would not be justified in construing the contract in a different manner and  then to set aside the award by observing that the arbitrator has exceeded  the jurisdiction in making the award”.\n<\/p>\n
20. With the above background let us now examine the findings of the  arbitrator on different claims.\n<\/p>\n
 Claim No. 1:\n<\/p>\n
21. The claimant claimed a sum of Rs. 3,87,271\/- on account of balance  payment for undisputed items. The learned arbitrator allowed a sum of Rs.  75,277,77 as the respondent agreed to make the said payment to the claimant  (as per Annexure 6).\n<\/p>\n
22. Learned counsel for the respondent while challenging the said claim  has contended that no such concession was ever made by the respondent in  favour of the claimant. It has been wrongly recorded by the learned arbitrator that the respondent agreed to make the said payment. According to  the learned counsel there is no such mention even in the proceedings before  the arbitrator. There is no such statement on the file of the arbitrator  with regard to the said concession alleged to have been made for and on  behalf of the respondent. The learned counsel has thus argued that the  finding record by the learned arbitrator on Claim No. 1 is perverse and  mala fide. It is thus liable to be set aside.\n<\/p>\n
23. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, has submitted  that the arbitrator in the instant case was a Superintending Engineer of  the respondent. He was an employee of the respondent. Hence how he could  have gone against the interests of the respondent if the said concession  was not made by an officer i.e. the Executive Engineer who was conducting  the proceedings before the arbitrator on behalf of the department.\n<\/p>\n
24. Proceedings before an arbitrator, it is a well recognized principle of  law, are quasi judicial in nature. Thus an arbitrator is duly bound to  decide cases honesty and sincerely in accordance with law. It cannot be  expected from an officer who is acting in a judicial capacity to add some  thing from his side to the proceedings or to subtract any thing therefrom  unless there are cogent reasons for the same. Hence it is inconceivable  that the arbitrator would have incorporated in the award a fact or a statement in the form of a concession by the respondent, at his own volition to  the detriment of the respondent. I am not in a position to accept the  contention raised by the learned counsel for the respondent.\n<\/p>\n
25. There is another aspect of the matter. The respondent have not placed  any thing on record in order to show and prove, even prima facie, that the  said fact with regard to the concession was wrongly recorded. In fact it  was not so. They could have done so in the form of an affidavit by the  Executive Engineer who was conducting the proceedings on behalf of the  respondent. Furthermore there is nothing on record to show that the said  Executive Engineer ever brought to the notice of the higher authorities  that the said concession has been wrongly recorded by the Superintending  Engineer i.e., the arbitrator. There is also absolutely nothing on record  to show that any action was ever taken against the arbitrator by the respondent who was their employee for misconducting himself during the proceedings. I thus see no reason whatsoever to interfere with the finding of  the arbitrator on this point.\n<\/p>\n
 Claim No. 5:\n<\/p>\n
26. The petitioner claimed a sum of Rs. 66,475\/- under this claim. Out of  said claim, according to the claimant, a sum of Rs. 6,475\/- was still lying  with the respondent. According to the learned Arbitrator there was absolutely no reason whatsoever as to why the said amount was being withheld  and retained by the respondent. Hence he ordered for release of the same. I  thus feel that the arbitrator was justified in awarding that claim to the  tune of Rs. 6,475\/-.\n<\/p>\n
 Claim No. 6:\n<\/p>\n
27. The claimant claimed a sum of Rs. 8,239.34 but restricted it to Rs.  6,904.26 in the statement of facts on account of substituting agreement No.  2.2(a) with SI for CC 1:5:10 with brick aggregate instead of existing item  in the agreement. The learned arbitrator after construing the terms of the  agreement in between the parties came to the conclusion that the claimant  was entitled to a sum of Rs. 6,904.26. There is absolutely no reasons,  whatsoever, as to why the said finding should be disturbed.\n<\/p>\n
 Claim No. 7:\n<\/p>\n
28. The claimant under this claim claimed a sum of Rs. 1,78,620\/- on  account of change of design from ordinary grill to ornamental grill. There  was no dispute in between the parties with regard to the factum of the  execution of the work as shown in the photographs placed before the learned  arbitrator. The quantity executed by the claimant as per the final bill is  54,512.25 Kg. The difference in rates as per DSR Item for plain grills and  ornamental grills worked out to Rs. 3.26 per Kg. The learned arbitrator  thus was of the view that the contractor should be paid for ornamental  grills as the labour involved in the same was much more. Hence he awarded a  sum of Rs. 1,78,620\/-. Hence there is no justification for interference  with the said observations of the learned arbitrator.\n<\/p>\n
 Claim No. 8:\n<\/p>\n
29. An amount of Rs. 14,952\/- was awarded under this head on account of  difference of the pipes. According to the claimant the rain water Pipe  could not be fitted with the AC pipe. As such the claimant were directed by  the then Chief Engineer to use SCI soil vent pipe of 100mm dia. The respondent, according to the learned arbitrator, verified from the site and  confirmed that ISI marked SCI pipe was used at the site of work. It was in  the above circumstances that the learned arbitrator awarded a sum of Rs.  14,952\/- to the claimant. Thus I feel this finding does not call for any  interference.\n<\/p>\n
 Claim No. 10:\n<\/p>\n
30. The claim of Rs. 1,01,899\/- is with regard to the use of section FX6 &  FX8 in manufacturing the composite units for door and windows instead of F7d as per drawing. It was stated by the claimant before the arbitrator that  as per the instructions of the Chief Engineer the claimant have used FX6  and FX8 instead of F-7d. There was no dispute with regard to the quantity.  The factum of use of FX6 and FX8 was duly verified by the respondent and  there was no dispute with regard to the use of same. Hence the learned  arbitrator was of the view that since the work had been executed after  1985, the difference in rates of DSR 85 and DSR 81 was being allowed without enhancement i.e. Rs. 118.23 per sq. mt. for 593.75 sq. mt. which worked  out to Rs. 70,199.06. Consequently, the same was allowed. The learned  arbitrator has given out very cogent reasons. Thus there is no justification for interfering with his findings.\n<\/p>\n
 Claim No. 11:\n<\/p>\n
31. This claim is regarding disposal of surplus earth from the construction site. It was conceded before the learned arbitrator by the respondent  that there was no undulation in the site nor any big points existing thereon. Hence the surplus earth was to be disposed of outside the construction  site. The claimant in this connection showed 17 original vouchers for  cartage to the learned arbitrator and submitted four photocopies thereof by  way of sample. It was in the above circumstances that the learned arbitrator opined that the claimant were entitled to Rs. 34,000\/-. This Court  feels that the learned arbitrator was justified in doing so.\n<\/p>\n
 Claim No. 14:\n<\/p>\n
32. The claimant claimed a sum of Rs. 1,55,865\/- for the amount demanded  under clause 12-A of the agreement for the heavy deviation in item No. 10.2  of agreement i.e. lying of CC path. According to the learned arbitrator  that total quantity executed by the contractor was 4204.89 sq. mtr. whereas  the quantity required as per the agreement was 689.6 sq. mt. After allowing  20% deviation at the contractual rate the extra work executed by the contractor was 3377.37 sq. mt. He thus awarded the same at the rate of Rs.  22.15 per sq. mtr. i.e. Rs. 74,774.97. The learned arbitrator has given  very cogent reasons for arriving at his conclusions and this Court does not  see any reason to differ from the same.\n<\/p>\n
 Claim No. 15:\n<\/p>\n
33. The claimant under this claim claimed an amount of Rs. 24,691.00 on  account of recovery made by the respondent for 75mm and 100mm SCI soil and  vent pipe. According to the claimant the recoveries were made at two difference rates. The learned arbitrator after examining the record found that  the lines have been scored out but the same have neither been signed by the  contractor one by the Executive Engineer. It was in the above circumstances  that the arbitrator came to the conclusion that the claim of the claimant  was justified and awarded a sum of Rs. 24,691.00 in favour of the claimant.  The findings of the arbitrator are just and reasonable and do not call for  any interference by this Court.\n<\/p>\n
 Claim No. 16:\n<\/p>\n
34. Under this claim the claimant claimed a sum of Rs. 52,921.73 for  wrongful deductions and reductions. The learned arbitrator awarded a sum of  Rs. 40,924.50 in favour of the claimant in full and final settlement of  this claim. He has given very good reasons in support of his conclusion. I  therefore, do not think it proper to differ from him on this point.\n<\/p>\n
 Claim No. 17:\n<\/p>\n
35. The claimant laid a claim of Rs. 10,17,727\/- as damages for idle  labour, staff, machinery, centering sheltering etc. According to the claimant the work was to start from December 17, 1984 and the date of completion  was December 16, 1985. However, on account of the defaults on the part of  the respondents the final work could be completed on August, 31, 1989.  Under the rules it was incumbent on the claimant to have a graduate engineer at the site till the work was completed. As per clause 36 if the  graduate engineer was not there recovery could be effected by the respondent, and it was in fact effected when the graduate engineer was on leave.  Reliance was placed in connection therewith on Exts. C-7, C-18, C-24, C-26,  C-27, C-29 and C-32. In the above circumstances the arbitrator sanctioned a  sum of Rs. 5,000\/- per month for the period of 14 months by way of salary  of the engineer and for maintenance of establishment and machinery. He  therefore, awarded a sum of Rs. 2,20,000\/- in favour of the claimant. There  is absolutely, in view of the above, no justification to differ from the  arbitrator on this point.\n<\/p>\n
 Claim No. 19:\n<\/p>\n
36. The claimant preferred a claim under clause 10CC on the awarded  amount. The respondent also agreed on this point. It was in the above  circumstances that the learned arbitrator awarded a sum of Rs. 1,75,753.44.  The award is perfectly legal and valid thus does not call for any interference.\n<\/p>\n
 Claim No. 20:\n<\/p>\n
37. The claimant claimed pre-suit interest @ 24% per annum from September  1989 to the fate of entering the reference i.e. February 15, 1995. The  learned arbitrator however, awarded pre-suit interest from October, 1, 1991  to February 15, 1995 on the awarded amount under Claim Nos. 1, 5, 6, 7, 8,  10, 11, 14, 15, 16, and 19 at the rate of 12% per annum as the notice  claiming interest was issued to the respondent on September, 28, 1991 (vide  C-50). The claimant further claimed interest on Claim Nos. 2 and 4. Since  the amount which was due to the claimant on September 1, 1989 was released  on March 7, 1995, hence the claimant claimed interest for the said period.  The arbitrator, however, allowed interest on Claim Nos. 2 & 4 from March  31, 1990 to March 7, 1995 at the rate of 12% per annum. I feel the same is  not correct. Admittedly, there was no agreement with regard to payment of  interest. However, the interest was claimed under Section 3(b) of the  Interest Act, 1978. Hence the claimant are entitled to interest with effect  from October, 1, 1991 to March 7, 1995 at the rate of 12% per annum as the  notice in the present case is dated September, 28, 1991 (Vide C-50). It is  a well settled principle of law that the arbitrator has the jurisdiction to  award pre-suit interest in cases which arise after the interest Act, 1978.  It was observed in State of Orissa Vs. B.N. Agarwalla etc. : In the instant case, the claim for interest even for the  pre-reference period has arisen after the Interest Act, 1978 had come into  force and, therefore, the arbitrator could award interest for all the three  periods … ” In view of the above, the claimant is entitled to interest on  Claims Nos. 2 and 4 for the period from October 1, 1991 to March 7, 1995 at  the rate of 12% per annum. Consequently, the findings of the arbitrator  stand modified to that extent only.\n<\/p>\n
 Claims Nos. 21 & 22:\n<\/p>\n
38. The arbitrator awarded pendente lite interest @ 12% per annum for the  period from February 16, 1995 to August 21, 1996 and future interest at the  rate of 16% per annum, there is no justification to interfere with the  same.\n<\/p>\n
39. In the above circumstances I do not see any force in the objections.  The same are hereby dismissed with costs. The award dated August 21, 1996  is hereby made a rule of the court with the above modification as pointed  out while disposing of Claim No. 20. Let a decree in terms thereof be  passed in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent. The petitioner shall also be entitled to pendente lite and future interest at the  rate of 16% per annum till the realization of the decretal amount.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court S.S. Jetley vs Delhi Development Authority on 14 September, 1999 Equivalent citations: 1999 VAD Delhi 741, 81 (1999) DLT 681, 2000 (52) DRJ 330 Author: M Shamim Bench: M Shamim JUDGMENT Mohd. Shamim, J. 1. Shri Suresh Mehta, Superintending Engineer, was appointed as an arbitrator. He filed his award before this Court […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[14,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-156061","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-delhi-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nS.S. Jetley vs Delhi Development Authority on 14 September, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-s-jetley-vs-delhi-development-authority-on-14-september-1999\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"S.S. Jetley vs Delhi Development Authority on 14 September, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-s-jetley-vs-delhi-development-authority-on-14-september-1999\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1999-09-13T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-04-27T16:04:22+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"26 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-s-jetley-vs-delhi-development-authority-on-14-september-1999#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-s-jetley-vs-delhi-development-authority-on-14-september-1999\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"S.S. Jetley vs Delhi Development Authority on 14 September, 1999\",\"datePublished\":\"1999-09-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-04-27T16:04:22+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-s-jetley-vs-delhi-development-authority-on-14-september-1999\"},\"wordCount\":5125,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Delhi High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-s-jetley-vs-delhi-development-authority-on-14-september-1999#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-s-jetley-vs-delhi-development-authority-on-14-september-1999\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-s-jetley-vs-delhi-development-authority-on-14-september-1999\",\"name\":\"S.S. Jetley vs Delhi Development Authority on 14 September, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1999-09-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-04-27T16:04:22+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-s-jetley-vs-delhi-development-authority-on-14-september-1999#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-s-jetley-vs-delhi-development-authority-on-14-september-1999\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-s-jetley-vs-delhi-development-authority-on-14-september-1999#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"S.S. Jetley vs Delhi Development Authority on 14 September, 1999\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"S.S. Jetley vs Delhi Development Authority on 14 September, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-s-jetley-vs-delhi-development-authority-on-14-september-1999","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"S.S. Jetley vs Delhi Development Authority on 14 September, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-s-jetley-vs-delhi-development-authority-on-14-september-1999","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1999-09-13T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-04-27T16:04:22+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"26 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-s-jetley-vs-delhi-development-authority-on-14-september-1999#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-s-jetley-vs-delhi-development-authority-on-14-september-1999"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"S.S. Jetley vs Delhi Development Authority on 14 September, 1999","datePublished":"1999-09-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-04-27T16:04:22+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-s-jetley-vs-delhi-development-authority-on-14-september-1999"},"wordCount":5125,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Delhi High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-s-jetley-vs-delhi-development-authority-on-14-september-1999#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-s-jetley-vs-delhi-development-authority-on-14-september-1999","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-s-jetley-vs-delhi-development-authority-on-14-september-1999","name":"S.S. Jetley vs Delhi Development Authority on 14 September, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1999-09-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-04-27T16:04:22+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-s-jetley-vs-delhi-development-authority-on-14-september-1999#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-s-jetley-vs-delhi-development-authority-on-14-september-1999"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-s-jetley-vs-delhi-development-authority-on-14-september-1999#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"S.S. Jetley vs Delhi Development Authority on 14 September, 1999"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/156061","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=156061"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/156061\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=156061"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=156061"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=156061"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}