* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Judgement delivered on: 14.11.2025

+ FAO (COMM) 263/2023

K P RANA ..... APPELLANT

versus

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ..... RESPONDENT

Advocates who appeared in this case

For the Appellant : Mr. Rahul Malhotra, Mr.Siddharth Singh,

Mr.Rishabh Singh, Mr. Chirag Goyal, Advocates.

For the Respondent : Mr. Vaibhav Agnihotri, ASCwith Mr. Vidit

Pratap Singh, Mr. Ankit Singh andMr. Harshit Kiran, Advocates

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR

JUDGMENT

V. KAMESWAR RAO, J.

1. This appeal has been filed under Section 37(1)(c) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the Act) with the following prayers:-

“a. Pass an order setting aside the impugned order dated 04.11.2023 passed by the Ld. District Judge, Commercial Court, District South East, Saket Courts in OMP (Comm.) No. 21 of 2022 and upholding and reinstating the award dated 14.02.2022 passed in the arbitration matter in K.P. Rana Vs. Delhi Development Authority;

b. Pass an order awarding costs of the present proceedings in favour of the Appellant and against the Respondent; and/or”

2. The facts as noted from the impugned order dated 04.11.2023 are that the appellant, K P Rana is engaged in construction activity of civil works like buildings, underground tanks (specialized work), sump wells, community halls, convenient shopping centers, development & laying of services in government departments i.e. Delhi Development Authority and Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board since more than 25 years. To a tender invited by the respondent, for the construction of a Community Hall at Block-G, Sector-11, Rohini, Delhi, at an estimated cost of Rs.l,80,82,008/-, calculated on the basis of DSR-2012, the appellant had tendered an amount of Rs.1,55,35,863/- i.e. 14.08% below the estimated cost. The appellant was declared as the successful bidder and accordingly, a letter of acceptance dated 10.01.2014 was issued by the respondent to the appellant. The agreement was signed between the parties on 15.01.2014. The stipulated date of start of work was 20.01.2014. The stipulated date for completion of the work was 19.01.2015. Due to hindrances, deviations and extra items, the scope of the work increased. The work was finally completed on 22.05.2017, after a delay of 853 days.

3. The appellant had submitted before the learned District Judge that an application for extension of time (EOT) up to the date of completion of work was filed. The case was processed and it was found that justified period as per the hindrance register was 936 days but an extension of 872 days only up to the date of completion was required and accordingly, EOT for 872 days up to the date of completion was granted without levy of compensation. The approval of EOT was conveyed to the appellant by the respondent vide letter dated 06.09.2017. The finalization of the 9th RA Bill which was also the final bill remained pending on account of sanction of the extra items. The respondent sanctioned the rates vide letter dated 08.04.2019 and finalized the claim of the 9th RA Bill for Rs.2,34,544/-, but later corrected / adjusted the 9th RA bill and finalized that the appellant was to be paid Rs. 2,22,818/- only.

4. The appellant had further submitted that thereafter, vide letter dated 02.09.2019, the respondent/DDA informed the appellant that the final bill was ready for payment and the appellant should furnish the guarantee bond for Rs.9 lakhs. The appellant wrote a letter dated 05.09.2019 that due to financial constraints he is not in a position to submit the bond. The respondent, thereafter, wrote another letter dated 21.09.2019, demanding a guarantee bond. The appellant wrote a letter dated 26.09.2019 stating that towards the guarantee bond, a sum of Rs.9 lakhs could be withheld from his claims. On 03.10.2019, the appellant informed the respondent