MITTAL BROTERS Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Without going into the chequered history of the case into details the short controversy that falls for determination is whether the learned Arbitrator misconducted himself by not entertaining the counter claims of the respondent-DDA/objector and returning any finding in respect thereof and has rendered his award liable for setting aside.

(2.) This was a contract which became subject matter of criticism by the Press as to the weak foundations laid by the contractor while constructing as many as 944 houses under the SFS scheme at Kishangarh Sector-A Pocket B & C. So much so the allegations were ordered to be investigated by the CBI and the record of the respondent/objector remained in the custody of the CBI for long. However for the purpose of the instant objections the following facts are relevant:-

(3.) The disputes arose between the parties with regard to the work of construction of 944 houses under the SFS scheme at Kishangarh and the petitioner invoked the arbitration clause. The Engineer Member DDA appointed Mr. R.C.Malhotra as a sole Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes. The Arbitrator entered upon the reference on 8/04/1992. Inspite of opportunities the respondents failed to file the reply to the claims of the petitioner as well as the statement of facts in respect of their counter claims. However the proceedings were closed on 14/01/1994. The respondent moved an application before this Court vide OMP 29/94 for restraining the Arbitrator from making and publishing the award. Vide order dated 16-4-1994 the High Court allowed the respondent four weeks time to file the counter statement of facts as well as the counter claims. Though the time of four weeks allowed by the Court expired on 16/05/1994 but the respondents filed the counter statement of facts on 18/05/1994.