DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. ANANT RAJ AGENCIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Delhi Development Authority ('DDA') is aggrieved by an Award dated 18th July 2003, passed by the sole Arbitrator in the disputes between M/s. Anant Raj Agencies (Respondent No.1) and the DDA arising out of the award by the DDA in favour of the Respondent No.1, of the work of construction of multi-storeyed flats 120 Category III, 72 Category III (Duplex) flats in East of Kailash under SFS Pockets A & B.

(2.) THE work was to begin on 23rd May 1983 and the stipulated date of completion was 22nd November 1984. The actual date of completion of the work was 30th April 1989. The disputes between the parties were referred to Mr. K.D. Bali who was appointed as sole Arbitrator by the DDA on 30th June 1992. After conducting seventy-nine hearings, Mr. Bali resigned by a letter dated 17th February 1997. He was substituted by Mr. H.B. Jha who held a further thirteen hearings and thereafter delivered the impugned Award.

(3.) THE case of the Respondent No.1 was that there were delays which were caused by the DDA. These included delay in handing over the site, delay in deciding the depth of the excavation for raft foundation, delay in conducting tests for soil investigation, delay in making available the structural drawings, delay in engaging separate agency for supply and filling earth over the RCC Raft in the blocks, delay in vacation of site by other agencies engaged by DDA for work in the adjoining site, and delay due to non-decision regarding drawings of doors, windows, chokhats etc. So were the delays on account of the decision regarding details of lobby portion, railings, grills, lift etc. and delay in laying of conduit pipes for electrical contractors and the failure to take a decision in regard to the location of water tanks, fire-fighting arrangement, water supply and drainage arrangement. In addition, it was stated that there was a shortage of CI pipes, cement and steel. Beginning 5th June 1986 the work stopped for over eight months due to non-receipt of approval of scheme from the Delhi Urban Art Commission. It was further submitted by Respondent No.1 that by granting extension of time ('EoT') without levy of compensation, DDA had admitted that it was entirely responsible for the delay.