The main legal point established in the judgment is the obligation of the contractor to submit the final bill within the stipulated time frame, and the distinction between the validity of the claim for reference and the time-bar of the claims themselves.

1. The objections filed by the Plaintiff, M/s. Bindra Builders in IA No. 821 of 2002 under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (‘Act’) to an Award dated 29th September 2000 of the sole Arbitrator are being disposed of by this judgment.

2. The background facts are that the Plaintiff, a partnership firm, was awarded various works in Group Housing Schemes for construction of 1440 MIG/LIG Dwelling Units (‘DUs’) at Trilokpuri, New Delhi by the Defendant No. 1, Delhi Development Authority (‘DDA’). The disputes between the parties were referred to arbitration after the Plaintiff filed Suit No.2659A of 1994 in this Court under Section 20 of the Act. Although the time limit for publication of the Award was four months from 9th July 1996, the date on which the Arbitrator entered upon the reference, the time was enlarged periodically with the consent of the parties. The plaintiff filed its statement of facts/claims on th July 1996. DDA filed its counter statement of facts/claims and counterclaims on 3rd September 1996. DDA filed a revised counter statement of facts/claims on 2nd September 1997. CS (OS) No.1001A of 2001 Page 1 of 12

3. A preliminary objection was raised before the learned Arbitrator that the Plaintiff’s claims were barred by limitation. DDA pointed out that the entire work, even according to the Plaintiff’s statement of claim, was completed by 1982 and flats were handed over till 1984. Thereafter no further work was done on the site. Serious shortcomings in the work were pointed out by the Quality Control Wing in their inspection report. According to DDA, both on account of the defects pointed out and the fact that the Plaintiff had already been paid much more than what was due by the DDA, the Plaintiff never bothered to present any claim. It is stated that the Plaintiff never raised any claim for payment in any of the letters written till June 1987. Thereafter, another request was made on 20th May 1992. The arbitration clause was invoked only in 1994 and the Plaintiff made claims for the first time in May 1996. The DDA’s case was that the cause of action arose either in 1982 or at the latest in October 1984. The period of limitation for the claim expired either in 1985 or latest in 1987. The arbitration clause was invoked on 30th September 1994 when limitation had already expired.

4. The case of the Plaintiff was that when DDA filed its counter statement of facts, it did not raise any objection as to the Plaintiff’s claims being barred by limitation. Consequently, DDA could not raise this objection in its written submissions. No show cause notice under Clause 14 of the contract had been served upon the Plaintiff by the DDA for rectification of the defects. Also, no deduction/reduction was made in the payments against running bills. Initially, DDA informed the Arbitrator by its letter dated 6th November 1996 that a minus bill in the sum of Rs. 3,21,727.25 was recoverable. Subsequently DDA wrote to the Plaintiff’s bankers on 12th February 1997 claiming Rs. 1,30,524. Therefore, DDA itself was not clear about what its stand was. By a letter dated 27th December 1982, the Plaintiff had intimated completion of the work and requested issuance of a completion certificate. However, DDA failed to fulfill its reciprocal obligation and no certificate of completion or provisional certificate of completion along with the list of defects to be rectified was ever issued to the Plaintiff by the DDA. The Plaintiff was obliged to submit a final bill only after the receipt of the completion certificate. The DDA did not finalize the bill or send an intimation regarding the bill being ready for payment. The final bill was submitted by DDA only during the course of the arbitral proceedings. Therefore, the question of Plaintiff’s claims being barred by limitation did not arise.

5. By the impugned Award dated 29th September 2000, the learned Arbitrator accepted the case of the DDA that the Plaintiff had invoked the arbitration