SANYUKTA NIRMATA Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, filed by the petitioner seeking directions to the respondents to file the arbitration agreement in the Court and for making to reference of the remaining claims in disputes as detailed in the petition to the arbitration of S.E.(Arb.)-II, DDA, who has already been appointed as an Arbitrator to resolve some other disputes arising out of the same contract.

(2.) Briefly the facts alleged are that the petitioner is a registered partnership firm and were awarded the work of construction of 536 Houses for CAT-II (Two Bedroom) under S.F.S. houses on Block-C, Sector-19, Rohini, Category-II, SH: Construction of 192 Houses for CAT-II, (Two Bedroom) under SFS Group-II and an agreement bearing No.26/EE/RPD-6/90-91 was executed between the parties which contained the terms and conditions of the contract and also provided for settlement of disputes by arbitration.

(3.) It is alleged that the work was commenced on 7.2.1991 and was to be completed within the stipulated period of 15 months. For executing the work the petitioner had made all arrangements. However, the work could not be completed within the stipulated period as respondents failed to fulfil their contractual obligations as a result of which the work could be completed on 31.1.1994 against the originally agreed period ending on 6.5.1992. It is also alleged that vide letter dated 5.5.1992 the petitioner had informed the respondents that they will continue the work beyond the stipulated date of completion on the condition that they would be entitled to reasonable compensation on account of prolongation of the contractual period and the escalation in cost of materials and labours as provided under clause 10-CC of the agreement was not adequate and the petitioner had demanded 20% escalation over and above the agreed tendered rates under clause 10CC of the agreement. It appears that the petitioner had also submitted the bills accordingly and his bills were not paid in full and also were not paid in time and some unwarranted recoveries were also made from the bills. Even security deposit has not been released/paid though the defect liability period had ended on 31.7.1994. Thus as there were disputes between the parties the petitioner vide his letter dated 1.8.1995 had invoked the arbitration clause. Details of the disputes were grouped in four categories. (1) Claim No.1-items not paid or paid at lower than the due rates. This comprised 19 items. (2) Claim No.2-Amounts unduly withheld, unjustified recoveries, reduction items etc. It contained 10 items. (3) Claim No.3-Interest compensation and damages comprised of 16 items. Claim No.4-Interest, pre suit, pendente lite and future interest on all amounts at the rate of 20% per annum from the due date till date of payment.