DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. NARAINDAS R. ISRANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed raising certain objections under Sec. 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereafter, the 'A&C Act') against the award dtd. 22/1/2009 (hereafter, the 'impugned award') delivered by the Arbitral Tribunal comprising of Sole Arbitrator (hereafter, 'AT') with respect to Claims No. 1& 39, 5, 7, 14, 16, 20, 23, 28, 31, 34, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48& 49.

(2.) The impugned award came to be delivered in the context of contract dtd. 24/12/1987 which came to be executed in consequence of a Public Tender invited by the petitioner for "Construction of 152 Nos. Houses for Cat-II and Cat-III (76 Cat-II and 76 Cat-III) and 114 Scooter garages i/c water supply etc. in Group-I under SFS Sector-I, Pocket K&Lat Sarita Vihar." The stipulated date of start of work was 3/1/1988 and stipulated date of completion was 2/4/1989. The work actually came to be completed on 31/3/1992.

(3.) The respondent/Claimant approached AT and filed forty-nine claims. The AT awarded Claim Nos. 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 17,18, 19, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 29, 30, 32, 33, 35, 36, 37, 38, 40, 41, 42, 43 in favour of the petitioner and Claim Nos. 1&39, 5, 7, 14, 16, 20, 23, 28, 31, 34,44, 45, 46, 47, 48&49 against the petitioner. At the time of issuance of the notice vide order dtd. 13/10/2009, the petitioner had restricted the challenge to claim nos. 1, 31, and 39. However, subsequently, the petitioner filed FAO (OS) No.655/2010 assailing the order dtd. 13/10/2009 before the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court. The Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court vide judgment dtd. 9/9/2011 disposed of the FAO stating that limited notice could not have been issued.