The court upheld the award of the Arbitrator, emphasizing that the findings were based on facts and evidence, and the challenges raised by the Petitioner were without merit.

JUDGMENT :

1. The present petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) challenges the award dated 1st October 2018 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘impugned order’) passed by the learned Sole Arbitrator.

Facts

2. The brief facts as stated in the petition are that, Petitioner/Delhi Development Authority (DDA) held a national competition for registered architects inviting layout plans for development of a tract of land measuring 25.16 hectares in Vasant Kunj. Respondent participated in the aforesaid competition and submitted the basic presentation and drawing plans for overall development of the said land. After selection, on 5th October 1999, Petitioner issued an offer letter defining the scope of work. This was followed by execution of the agreement dated 10th November 2000, which prescribed a period of six years from the date of signing of the agreement for completion of the contract. The fee of the Respondent was fixed at 2 percent of the total cost of construction i.e Rs. 2,70,67,86/- which was to be paid as per Clause 13 of the agreement.

3. Later, the total site area was reduced from 25.16 Ha to 23.65 Ha. This resulted in change in the site area and configuration of the site perimeters. For the above reason and due to the upcoming Common Wealth Games, Petitioner vide letter dated 15th January 2008, extended the time for completion of the work upto November 2010. Subsequently, the completion date was extended till October 2012 and further till December 2014.

4. Respondent vide letter dated 23rd July 2014, raised certain claims pertaining to non payment of professional fees. Disputes arose between the parties. Petitioner vide letter dated 8th October 2014 invoked arbitration and proposed the name of the learned Arbitrator. Respondent consented to the same and the arbitration proceedings commenced. Respondent filed its Statement of Claim inter alia raising 7 claims and the Petitioner contested the same by raising counter claims.

5. Learned Arbitrator passed the impugned award allowing certain claims of the Respondent. Petitioner assails the award in respect of claim Nos. 1, 2 and 6. The objections raised are dealt separately as under:

Claim No. 1 for Rs. 76,94,639/- in respect of 12th and final bill dated 23rd July 2014

6. The learned Arbitrator has partly allowed the claim for Rs. 41,92,530/- and by way of declaratory award it has been held that the service tax shall also be paid by the Petitioner to the Respondent at the prevailing rate when the aforenoted payment is made to the Respondent. The awarded amount has two components:

a. Balance fee awarded applying the factor of 95 % being Rs. 32,91,587/-

b. Rs. 9,00,943/- awarded towards service tax reimbursement

A. Whether the Respondent is entitled to the balance fees at the factor of 95 %.

7. The objection of DDA is that the learned Arbitrator has wrongly held that the Respondent had completed the work as stipulated under Clause 13.7 of the agreement. It is urged that the learned Arbitrator should have awarded only 90% of the balance fees as the Respondent had failed to carry out all its obligations under the agreement and had not reached the stage as contemplated under Clauses 13.7 and 13.8 of the agreement.

8. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that by end of the year 2002, the Respondent had completed only 55% of the total work whereas as per the agreement, 70% of the total work was required to be completed by 20th August 2001. Thus, there was an obvious delay in execution and submissions of drawings and designs. Despite repeated reminders, Respondent failed to submit the drawings and seek Petitioner's approval. Respondent also failed to complete the project and obtain the completion certificate. Due to incomplete and wrong drawings provided by the Respondent, Petitioner incurred a substantial los