GROUP-21

JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA UNIVERSITY, FACULTY OF LAW

MEMORIAL FOR RESPODENT

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION

Submitted Through:

Counsels For Respondent

MD FARHAN ALAM KHAN

BA LLB HONS (Self Finance)

STUDENT ID – 202003768 SERIAL NO:35

MD SAQUIB RAHMAN

BA LLB HONS (SELF FINANCE)

STUDENT ID – 202003980 SERIAL NO-29

Submitted To:

Ms. Sonal Chauhan

Asst. Professor (Faculty of Law) – Clinical Course – I

GROUP NO: 21

BEFORE THE HON'BLE ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL COMPRISING

HON'BLE ZEESHAN ZUBAIR, PRESIDING ARBITRATOR HON'BLE
REHBAR ABBAS, CO-ARBITRATOR

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION

CONDUCTED BEFORE THE ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL
BETWEEN:

Northern builder.........................Claimant

vs

Delhi Development Board.........................Respondent

Counsels For
Respondent Mohd
Farhan Alam Khan
BA LLB HONS (Self Finance)
STUDENT ID - 202003768, SERIAL NO -
35
Md Saquib Rahman
BA LLB HONS (Self finance)
STUDENT ID - 202003980, SERIAL NO -
29
Group 21
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION:

The Plaint Has been Filed in Accordance with Section 34 & 37of Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996 which provides for referring matter for arbitration and starting of the
arbitration proceeding when notice for such proceeding is received by the respondent.

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Delhi Development Board entered into a contract with Northern builders requiring them
to build a housing complex in Karol Bagh. The housing complex has 100 middle income and
50 low income houses. The contract required completion of these houses within a year. The
total cost for the said contraction was noted as Rs. 99,00,000. However, even after 34
months, only 98 middle income houses and 39 low income houses were completed
The delay in construction also cost them anticipated additional expense of Rs. 10,00,000 until
date. The builders provided detailed break-up of actual expenditure and demanded refund for
the same. The builders hold the hound responsible for causing the delay due So untimely
release of funds. The builders had to maintain tools & plants, scaffolding etc, during the
prolongation of the contract resulting in expenditure for the same
Whereas the Development Board demands compensation for delay from the builders. One of
the facts noted negligence on part of the builders regarding electrification work and the same
caused hire charges. The contract between the board and builders contain an arbitration
clause requiring them to settle any dispute pertaining to the construction of housing complex
by way arbitration.

SUMMARY OF ISSUES
The core issues in the present case revolved around allegation made against the Delhi
Development Board for delay in release of payment for the completed work which is
contested by the Delhi Development Board. Delhi Development Board not only refused the
allegation of delayed payment, but also alleges concealment of fact of cost incurred to
complete electrification work by the Northern builder’s .

ISSUE IN RAISED

1. Frivolous or false allegation of delay in payment made by the Claimant :-

The Claimant [Northern Builder’s ] had stated before this tribunal that there
was delay in release of payment from the side of Delhi Development Board, despite of
approving the completion of stated work.
Yes it is true that there were timely inspection carried out by the Delhi Development Board to
cross check the amount of completed work stated by Northern builder’s and there were no
mismatch in the alleged completed work and actual work on ground. But the allegation of
delayed payment is factually incorrect . This can be proved by various letters send by Delhi
Development Board to Northern builder’s to intimate them about the release of payment. On
matching the dates of letters of request of payment and intimation of release of payment from
Delhi Development Board there were only two instances of delayed payment rest there were
always payment on time.

2. Insufficient number of labor force, construction materials and other

required infrastructure:-
Through various inspection carried out by the employees of Delhi Development Board on
various dates i,e 05/10/2020, 05/04/2021 ,05/11/21 , 05/11/2022 ,and 05/05/23 it was found
that there was remarkable difference between agreed quantity of construction materials
numbers of employees and other resources. That difference can be proved by the difference
between agreed quantity and actually available on side can be referred through various
reports of inspections carried out on various dates.

3. Active concealment on behalf of Claimant of extra expenses incurred to

complete electrification work:-
On inquiry by employees of Delhi Development Board it was found that the complaint has
incurred a loss of sum rupees lacks to complete the electrification work by a third party
which they were not able to complete this expenditure incurred by the Claimant was
counselled not only from the Delhi Development Board but also from the tribunal This is
based upon a finding by project engineer of Delhi Development Board.
So, the losses that the Claimant had to incurred on account of their inefficiency are being
demanding in forms of damages from Delhi Development Board.

RELIEF SOUGHT
1. Damages:- Seeking compensation for liquidated damages as per term of contract
between Northern builder’s and Delhi Development Board in forms of penalty for
delay in completion of work.
2. Appointment of an expert:- appointment of an expert to review the current situation on site
and so as to found out the principal causes of delay which the Claimant has actively
concealed. When is given under Section 26 of the