Delhi High Court (August 9, 2001) 2001 (TLS)126509 2001-AD (Del)-7-385 DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. Mayor Furnishers and Decorators S. N. KAPOOR ( 1 ) HEARD. The petitioner has raised three objections relating to claim Nos. 1, 3 and 4. The learned Additional District judge has rejected those objections. Feeling aggrieved, the present appeal has been filed. ( 2 ) THE first objection related to the delay in performance of the contract. There is no dispute that the DDA has granted extension without levy of the compensation. However, the claimant had given an undertaking that he will hot claim any amount whatsoever on account of delay. The case of the respondent was that as a matter of fact, delay and hindrance had been caused by the DDA. It was also contended that the undertaking obtained by the DDA for not claiming any compensation on account of delay was obtained under duress whereas no such intention of the department has been placed on record. In this regard, learned additional District judge was absolutely correct when he found that it was a question of fact and the objector could not say that the arbitrator had over-stepped his jurisdiction and that he had awarded the amount beyond the scope of the jurisdiction. 2. 2 As regards the plea of estoppel, it appears that the learned arbitrator has considered the undertaking Ex. R/3 and found that Ex. R/3 was obtained from the contractor under duress. Even if it is supposed that the two views could be possible, in arbitration matters, neither this court not the learned Additional District judge could substitute its own view in place of view adopted by the Arbitrator and to reject the claim in this regard. ( 3 ) AS regards the second objection relating to the rights of extra items and substituted items, the dispute was about the reduction in the rates of these items. The objector claimed that the amount was paid on those items provisionally in the running account bills which were subject to final approval of the competent authority. The final competent authority approved the EI/si rates and accordingly full and final payments were made to the claimant. Consequently, learned Arbitrator, without discussing the market rate adopted the analysis and simply allowed the claim without assigning any reason. 3. The final competent authority approved the EI/si rates and accordingly full and final payments were made to the claimant. Consequently, learned Arbitrator, without discussing the market rate adopted the analysis and simply allowed the claim without assigning any reason. 3. 2 It is submitted, on the other hand, that the arbitrator has rightly given the award on claim no. 3 after considering the rival contentions and documents on record. It was not a nonspeaking award. The learned Arbitrator has taken the view that the rates of the extra substituted items, as proposed by the Executive Engineer were acceptable to claimant and it was on this basis that the work was executed and completed. The arbitrator took the View that the DDA could have no right under the terms of the agreement to reduce the mutually agreed rate of EI/si after the three years of completion of the work, without a valid basis and awarded a sum of Rs. 5,988 on the claim No. 3. 3. 3 It is not the case of the DDA that the Executive Engineer did not agree at the time of using those items. As such, the arbitrator was justified in taking the view that the DDA had no right under the terms of the agreement to reduce the mutually agreed rates of EI/si. As such, this objection had rightly been rejected by learned trial court. ( 4 ) THE next objection of the DDA was that there was no clause In the agreement to award the amount of interest due. Ms. Anusuya Salwan submits that no notice under Section 3 of interest Act, 1978 was ever given by the claimant to claim any interest and in absence of any notice, no interest could be awarded in respect of the period prior to the date of reference, In this regard, it is pointed out by learned counsel for the respondent that notice was given on 15/06/1989 claiming interest at the rate of 24% per annum w. e. f. 16/08/1985, from the date mentioned in the notice. It is also submitted that this question of absence of notice was not urged by learned counsel for the respondent at any stage before the court and, therefore, this court should presume that the arbitrator has awarded Interest only within his powers. 4. It is also submitted that this question of absence of notice was not urged by learned counsel for the respondent at any stage before the court and, therefore, this court should presume that the arbitrator has awarded Interest only within his powers. 4. 2 Now it is a settled law that unless and until the agreement does not exclude the awarding of interest, interest could be allowed by Arbitrator. But It is not possible to accept that any interest could be claimed in respect of any period prior to the date of notice. 4. 3 Now in this regard, the next limb of the argument of learned counsel for the appellant is that the interest could have been awarded only at the most, at the rate of 10. 5%, since the interest could be awarded under Section 3 (1 ) (b) of the Interest Act 1978, "at a rate not exceeding the current rate of interest" at the relevant period. The term "current rate of interest" is defined in Section 2 (b) of the Interest Act, 1978 as under: "current rate of interest" means the highest of the maximum rates at which interest may be paid on different classes of deposits (other than those maintained in savings account or those maintained by charitable or religious institutions) by different classes of scheduled banks in accordance with the directions given or issued to banking companies generally by the Reserve Bank of India under the Banking regulation Act, 1949 (10 of 1949 ). Explanationin this clause, scheduled bank means a bank, not being a co operative bank, transacting any business authorised by the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (10 of 1949); 4. 4 Since current rate now after reduction is 9%, earlier it was about 10. 5%, i feel that instead of 18%, the arbitrator could award only 10. 5% interest from 15/06/1989. To this extent, the award is modified in respect of Claim No. 4. ( 5 ) THE appeal is accordingly accepted partly. ( 6 ) PARTIES are left to bear their own costs. --- *** --- .