(1.) IA No. 3974/1996 in this proceeding the defendant/delhi Development Authority (DDA)challenges the legality and correctness of an award dated 20th July, 1995, published by the sole arbitrator, appointed by the parties.
(2.) THE brief facts, essential for deciding this case are that the claimant- plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the Contractor) was awarded civil works i. e development of land at Rohini, Phase I, SH : providing and lying water supply distribution lines in Sectors IV and V. According to the agreement the work was to be completed on 26th March, 1983. However, it is an undisputed fact that for varied reasons the time period was not adhered to. The dda apparently granted extension of time without levying compensation though it had the power to do so. The work was completed on 01. 10. 1985. The contractor raised several claims and ultimately the matter was referred to arbitration by the DDA. The arbitrator entered upon the reference on 13. 03. 1992. The parties to the proceedings lead evidence and on 20. 07. 1995 and the impugned award was made and published. The contractor had raised nine heads of claims with two heads of additional claims in arbitration. The DDA had initially contended in the arbitral proceedings that the disputes were ``excepted'` matter and that the claims were time barred. The arbitrator over-ruled both the objections and published his award on the merits.
(3.) THE DDA, through its counsel contends that the findings with regard to claim No. 2 are without foundation. It was contended by Ms. Anusuya Salwan, counsel for DDA, while relying on Clause 7, the award of Rs. 47,306. 28 was not justified in the facts and circumstances. It was contended that the claims of the contractor in the final bill were barred by limitation and that the arbitrator ignored Clause 7 which enjoined him (the contractor) to submit the bill within one month of the date fixed for completion of the work or of the date of the certificate furnished by the Engineer In-charge.