Page 1

JUDGMENT

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10531 OF 2014

(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO.14767 OF 2012)

Associate Builders …Appellant

Versus

Delhi Development Authority …Respondent

J U D G M E N T

R.F.Nariman,J.

1.

Leave granted.

2.

The appellant herein was awarded a certain construction work contract

by the DDA vide a letter of award dated 14^th May, 1992. DDA was building a

colony consisting of 7,000 houses in Trilok Puri in the trans-Yamuna area. 168

Middle Income Group houses and 56 Lower Income Group houses, Grade-A

Pocket- B (balance work) was awarded for the tendered amount of

Rs.87,66,678/-. The contract was to be completed in 9 months. Admittedly, it

was ultimately completed only in 34 months, the contractor completing 166

Middle Income Group houses and 36 Lower Income Group houses. The total

value of work that was done amounted to Rs.62,84,845/-. As many as 15

1

Page 2

JUDGMENT

claims were made by the contractor and the High Court of Delhi appointed one

Shri K.D. Bali to arbitrate the present dispute.

3.

We are concerned here with claims 9, 10, 11 and 15, for these claims

have been allowed by the Arbitrator and the DDA’s objections have been

dismissed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Delhi. The

Division Bench in an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act, 1996 has

stepped in to set aside the judgment of the Single Judge and negative these

claims. We are also concerned with claims 12 and 13 which have been scaled

down by the Division Bench.

4.

Claims 9, 10, 11 and 15 read as follows:

“Claim No.9: Claimants claim Rs. 20,950/- on account of hire

charges of centering shuttering due to delay in laying of

conduiting.

a) That the respondents had granted certain work of

electrification but the said agency did not lay the conduit

resulting in delay in removing the shuttering and causing hire

charges. This fact was reported to the respondents vide

claimant's letter dated 30.10.92 followed by reminders and also

found place in hindrance register.

b) That this is the actual expenditure incurred and thus the

claimant is entitled for its refund.

c) That the detailed break-up of this claim has been appended

separately.

Claim No.10: Claimants claim Rs.33,450/- being the hire

charges of shuttering due to stoppage of work in block no. 100

and 101.

a) That the department had virtually stopped the work in block

100 & 101 on 20.7.93 and it continued up to 26.2.94. During

this period no work was allowed to be executed in these two

2

Page 3

JUDGMENT

blocks resulting in blockade or centering and shuttering in the

said two blocks.

b) That by stoppage of work in these two blocks the claimants

had suffered hire charges of shuttering due to respondent's

lapses and defaults.

c) It is further stated that there was no justification for stoppage

of work and the action was arbitrary and totally unjust.

d) That the detail of this claim has been outlined and appended

separately and the same shall from part of the statement of

facts.

Claim No. 11: Rs.2,00,000/- payable as damages on account of

hire charges of tools & plants and scaffolding.

a) That due to prolongation of the contract on account of the

respondents the claimants had to maintain tools & plants,

scaffolding etc, during the prolongation of the contract resulting

in expenditure for the same.

b) That the said articles remained at site beyond the stipulated

period and the claimants suffered loss due to the said

prolongation.

Claim No. 15: Claimants claim damages Rs.6,25,979/- on

account of establishment due to prolongation of the contract.

a) That the claimants had contemplated maintenance of

establishment during stipulated peri