The main legal point established is that delays and breaches attributable to one party in a construction contract entitle the other party to compensation under the Indian Contract Act.

( 1 ) THE Delhi Development Authority (Objector) herein floated tenders for the construction of a Player's Building Phase-1 in 1981. The plaintiff also participated and was successful as its tender was accepted by the DDA vide letter dated June 18,1981. Formal agreement was also signed between the parties. The construction work under this contract was to be completed within eleven (11) months. However, as it has become a common feature, this contract also got prolonged much beyond the stipulated period. The work continued till 1984 and was not completed even by that time. According to the plaintiff, between 1984 and 1987 the DDA did not give any instruction regarding the work and it remained in suspended animation. In 1987, the plaintiff received letter dated May 12,1987 from the DDA cancelling the work.

( 2 ) AS per the plaintiff its dues were not settled and had many claims against the dda for the alleged breaches committed by the DDA because of which the work got delayed and ultimately not rescinded without even allowing the plaintiff to complete the work. In view of the Clause 25 of the General Conditions of contract which is an arbitration clause, the plaintiff requested for appointment of Arbitrator. As the needful was not done, Suit No. 934a/1988 was filed in this court in which orders dated September 13, 1988 were passed directing the Member engineer to appoint an Arbitrator in terms of Clause 25 of the Contract. Arbitrator was appointed pursuant to these directions. The Arbitrator, however, resigned and thereafter in his place another Arbitrator was appointed who also without completing the arbitration proceedings resigned. Ultimately Shri r. J. Bakhru was appointed as the Sole Arbitrator who has rendered the Award dated september 15,1993.

( 3 ) AFTER receiving the notice from the Arbitrator of making and publishing the award, the plaintiff filed Suit No. 2227a/93 which is an application under section 14 and 17 of the Arbitration Act,1940. Directions were given in this case to the Arbitrator to file the Award. After the Arbitrator filed his Award, notice of filing the award was issued to the parties. The plaintiff has accepted the Award as it chose not to file any objections. However, DDA has preferred to file objections under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act which are registered as IA. 1117/94. Both the counsel made their submissions qua these objections.

( 4 ) FIRST objection is to the award of amount against Claim No. 1. Under this claim, a sum of Rs. 860665/- was demanded as loss of profit due to curtailment of scope of work. A sum of Rs. 394922/- is awarded by the learned Arbitrator. It was the submission of the learned counsel for the DDA that no work was done after August,1984 as accepted in the Award itself and, therefore, it amounted to abandoning the work by the plaintiff. Under these circumstances, if work was formally rescinded on 12. 5. 1987 it was not open to the plaintiff to claim 'loss of profit'.

( 5 ) THERE is no dispute that execution of work was delayed. There is also no dispute that between 1984 and 1987 no work was carried. The plaintiff blamed the DDA for this state of affairs alleging that it happened due to hindrances, lapses, default and failures on the part of DDA to perform their obligation. It would be of importance to note that this contention of the plaintiff found favour with the learned Arbitrator. He has, inter alia, arrived at a finding to the effect that there was a delay in handing over complete and clear site due to delay in completion of work of pile foundation executed by other agency; the site was handed over in parts from time to time with the result the work in entire area could not be taken up immediately; there were delays in giving drawings and designs, revised drawings, detailed specifications, clarifications which were given in piecemeal; there was delay in making payment of escalation in price of material and labour under Clause 10 (c) and