SANYUKT NIRMATA Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was awarded the work pertaining to construction of 1776 LIG Houses in Sectors 6 & 7 at Rohini SH; construction of 336 LIG houses in Sector 6 Pocket 6 Rohini and an agreement bearing No.S/EE/RPD-l/82-83 was executed between the parties. The work was to commence on 28.11.1982 and the period of execution was 12 months. The work was not completed in time and was actually completed on 2.7.1985. It appears that some extra work was also done by the petitioner-contractor. Disputes arose about the various payments withheld or deducted from the bills, and also on account of extra items and extra costs/damages suffered due to delay in execution of the work which were not paid. Delay in completion of work was on the part of the respondent. The agreement between the parties in its clause 25 contained arbitration clause which provided that all questions and disputes shall be referred to the sole arbitration of the person to be appointed by the Engineer Member, Delhi Development Authority (for Short DDA). The petitioner raised disputes and approached the Engineer Member for appointment of the Arbitrator, who vide his letter No.EM-2(117) /88-Arbn/3308-ll, dated 1.3.1989 appointed Shri O.P. Goel, the then Chief Engineer, Public Witness .D., Delhi Administration as the Sole Arbitrator. As provided in clause 25 of the contract, it was also specified in the appointment order that as the amount of the claims in issue was above Rs. 50,000.00 the Arbitrator shall give reasons of the award as provided in the agreement. Later on three more claims No. 30, 31, and 32 made by Petitioner were- also referred to the arbitrator by Engineer Member in . pursuance of Order dated 24.4.1990 passed by this Court.

(2.) The learned Arbitrator entered upon the reference and vide letter dated 22.3.1989 called upon the Petitioner to file statement of claims within 15 days and the respondent was directed to file the Counter Statement of facts. The parties were directed to file documents also. Petitioner submitted its claim on 2.5.1989 making claims under several heads. Claims under heads No. 1 to 30 pertains to various items of the work, Claim No. 31 pertains to interest at the rate of 20% per annum and in claim No. 32 Rs. 25000.00 was claimed as costs of the Arbitration.

(3.) Respondent filed their Counter Statement of Facts on 21.8.1989 and disputed the claims made by the petitioner except the claim made at Item No. 17 which was stated to have been withheld till handing over of flats after quality control clearance. Rejoinder was also filed by the petitioner. Both the parties did not produce oral evidence but produced documents by way of evidence. Time for making the award was extended from time to time.