- (1.)The respondent/DDA invited tenders for providing RCC bored cast-in-situ pile foundation including pile caps and grade beams (Block 1 & 2) for a project for construction of multi-storeyedflats at Motia Khan, for which the petitioner was a successful tenderer, accepted vide letter dated 27.12.1984 at a negotiated amount of Rs.47,04,054/-. The work had to be completed within four months calculated from the 10th day after the date of issue of the award letter. It is a case of the appellant that all necessary arrangements were made for due execution of the work, especially keeping in mind the tight completion schedule. However, the respondent is alleged to have failed to make available the site. Thus, the appellant called upon DDA vide letter dated 11.02.1985 to do various acts.
"i) To remove the building materials of another contractor lying in the block No.1.

ii) To remove the huge malba filth and other rubbish material lying at the site of both the blocks.

iii) To put restriction on labourers, residents of jhuggies and the people of the trucks for using the site for natural coarses and thus creating the foul conditions, it was even difficult to take up the layout work.

iv) The site being highly undulated with heaps of garbage, malba, refuge etc. requests were made to you even during your site inspection for the clearance of the site which was creating obstructions in our work.

v) The discrepancy in the drawing were also pointed out to the Department."

(2.)The aforesaid hindrances are stated to have not been removed resulting in a meeting being held on 15.02.1985, the discussions of which were reduced into writing by the appellant in its letter dated 07.03.1986. The time period stipulated for work was expiring and thus the appellant called upon the respondent to compensate it for the losses suffered and in case the work was to be now executed, the same would be at market rate and on the respondent fulfilling the contractual obligations. The respondent vide their letter dated 05.03.1986 informed all the plans being approved by the Urban Art Commission so that the work of piling could be started. The appellant informed that the layout out drawings had still not been issued as per the letter dated 13.03.1986 and despite the appellant installing a test pile at site in January, 1985, the pile load was not conducted under the directions of the respondent and thus seeking clarifications in that behalf. The respondent, however, sought to put the blame on the appellant vide their letters dated05.04.1986 and 10.04.1986 which were replied to by the respondent on 10.04.1986 followed by letters dated 13.05.1986 and 18.09.1986.
(3.)The respondent issued a show cause notice to the appellant dated 21.05.1988 replied to on 25.05.1988 but the contract was ultimately cancelled by the respondent on 14.07.1988. In view of the arbitration clause contained in the agreement inter se the parties, the disputes were referred to the sole arbitration of Sh. S.Nagarajan where various claims were made. It appears that an award dated 27.01.1992 was published which was assailed before the Delhi High Court and was set aside and the matter was referred afresh for arbitration to Justice V.S.Aggarwal (Retd.) vide order dated 08.09.2006. The learned Arbitrator made and published the award dated 22.09.2008.