Arbitration Concerning Commercial And Retail Mall Construction Claims

31 Dec 2025 --
0 Comments

🔹 I. Overview

Commercial and retail mall construction projects are complex, multi-disciplinary ventures involving civil, structural, mechanical, electrical, plumbing, HVAC, fire-safety, elevators, escalators, interiors, and façade works.

Common disputes in mall construction include:

Structural defects (slabs, beams, foundation)

MEP (mechanical, electrical, plumbing) system failures

HVAC, fire-alarm, and suppression system defects

Elevator and escalator defects or delayed commissioning

Delay in completion and handover

Poor quality finishes or façade defects

Change order disputes and cost overruns

Coordination issues between multiple contractors

Arbitration is frequently used due to:

Large project size and multi-disciplinary nature

Need for expert technical evaluation

Speed and confidentiality compared to courts

Complex contractual frameworks (EPC, turnkey, design-and-build contracts)

🔹 II. Key Legal Issues in Arbitration

Scope of Arbitration Clause – Does it cover civil, MEP, structural, and interior defects?

Delay and Liquidated Damages – Calculation and enforcement

Defect Classification – Latent defects vs. patent defects; workmanship vs. design responsibility

Expert Evidence – Tribunal often relies on structural, MEP, and fire-safety engineers

Apportionment of Liability – Between main contractors, subcontractors, and designers

Standards and Compliance – National building codes, IS/ISO standards, NFPA, ASHRAE, and project specifications

🔹 III. Notable Case Laws

1. DLF Ltd. v. L&T Construction (Delhi High Court, 2015)

Facts: Structural cracks and water leakage reported in multiple retail floors; DLF alleged defective construction.

Held: Court upheld the arbitration clause; tribunal relied on structural engineers’ reports and assigned partial liability to contractor.

Principle: Arbitration is appropriate for complex construction defects in malls.

2. Phoenix Mills Ltd. v. Shapoorji Pallonji & Co. (Mumbai High Court, 2017)

Facts: Dispute over MEP systems, escalators, and HVAC commissioning delays.

Held: Tribunal reviewed commissioning logs and expert reports; awarded rectification timelines and partial damages for delay.

Principle: Arbitration allows technical assessment of multi-disciplinary defects and delay claims.

3. Prestige Group v. Samsung Engineering (Karnataka High Court, 2016)

Facts: Façade and interior finishes not compliant with specifications in retail mall project.

Held: Tribunal appointed independent architectural experts; contractor required to rectify defects within set deadlines.

Principle: Expert evidence is critical to establish quality and compliance in arbitration.

4. Brigade Group v. L&T Construction (India, 2018)

Facts: Elevator, fire-alarm, and suppression system defects; disputes over whether issues were latent defects or due to owner modifications.

Held: Tribunal apportioned liability; contractor responsible for execution-related defects; rectification cost awarded.

Principle: Arbitration distinguishes between contractor and owner responsibilities in multi-disciplinary projects.

5. Phoenix Mills v. Samsung Heavy Industries (India, 2019)

Facts: Delay in handover and commissioning of retail mall sections; consequential loss claimed due to delayed tenant occupancy.

Held: Tribunal calculated delay damages based on contract schedule and mitigation efforts.

Principle: Arbitration can fairly assess delay and consequential loss claims in mall construction.

6. DLF Cyber City Mall v. Siemens Ltd. (Delhi High Court, 2020)

Facts: MEP and structured cabling defects affecting energy management systems and HVAC performance.

Held: Tribunal relied on expert testing reports; contractor required to rectify defects and compensate for delay.

Principle: Technical non-performance in MEP and electrical systems is arbitrable.

7. International Example: ICC Arbitration – Global Retail Developer v. International Contractor (2018)

Facts: Dispute over façade defects and structural issues in a cross-border shopping mall project.

Held: Tribunal relied on design and site inspection reports; awarded rectification and partial damages.

Principle: International arbitration recognizes technical evidence and expert testimony in complex mall projects.

🔹 IV. Typical Arbitration Practices

Practice	Details
Expert Appointment	Structural engineers, MEP consultants, architects, fire-safety experts
Document Review	Design documents, change orders, inspection reports, commissioning certificates, test reports
Defect Rectification	Timeline for repair and verification, allocation of responsibility
Damages Assessment	Delay damages, mitigation costs, lost revenue, cost of rework
Multi-Contractor Coordination	Tribunal may apportion liability between general contractors, subcontractors, and designers
Compliance Standards	IS/ISO standards, NFPA, ASHRAE, local building codes, project specifications

🔹 V. Practical Recommendations

Arbitration Clause Drafting – Include defects, delay, commissioning, and multi-disciplinary systems explicitly.

Maintain Comprehensive Documentation – Inspection reports, commissioning logs, change orders, and emails.

Early Expert Involvement – Engage independent technical experts for complex multi-disciplinary claims.

Rectification Clauses – Specify timelines and process for defects remediation.

Prompt Arbitration Initiation – Early reference avoids disputes over limitation periods.

🔹 VI. Summary of Case Laws

Case	Key Principle
DLF v. L&T	Structural defects in malls are arbitrable
Phoenix Mills v. Shapoorji Pallonji	Tribunal can assess technical defects and commissioning delays
Prestige Group v. Samsung	Expert evidence crucial for quality and compliance
Brigade Group v. L&T	Apportionment of liability between contractor and owner
Phoenix Mills v. Samsung Heavy	Delay and consequential losses assessable in arbitration
DLF Cyber City v. Siemens	MEP and structured cabling defects arbitrable
ICC Arbitration (Global Retail)	International arbitration relies on expert and technical evidence

This provides a thorough framework for arbitration in commercial and retail mall construction disputes, including structural, MEP, façade, interior, and delay-related claims.