Discerning Recurrent Factors in Construction Disputes through Judicial Case Studies—An Indian Perspective
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Dispute Arousal
3. Research Framework and Methodology
3.1. Framework of the Study
3.2. Case Study Analysis
3.3. Statistical Analysis
4. Research Findings and Discussions
4.1. Descriptive Statistics and Correlation
4.2. KMO and Bartlett’s Test
4.3. Principal Component Analysis (Factor Analysis)
4.3.1. Communalities
4.3.2. Total Variance
4.3.3. Rotated Component Matrix
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Mahfouz, T.; Kandil, A. Litigation Outcome Prediction of Differing Site Condition Disputes through Machine Learning Models. J. Comput. Civ. Eng. 2012, 26, 298–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, Y. Construction Project Claim Management under the Background of Wireless Communication and Artificial Intelligence. Wirel. Commun. Mob. Comput. 2022, 2022, 6074104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sabri, O.; Lædre, O.; Bruland, A. A Structured Literature Review on Construction Conflict Prevention and Resolution: A Modified Approach for Engineering. Organ. Technol. Manag. Constr. 2022, 14, 2616–2630. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vardin, A.N.; Ansari, R.; Khalilzadeh, M.; Antucheviciene, J.; Bausys, R. An Integrated Decision Support Model Based on Bwm and Fuzzy-Vikor Techniques for Contractor Selection in Construction Projects. Sustainability 2021, 13, 28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Braimah, N. Approaches to Delay Claims Assessment Employed in the UK Construction Industry. Buildings 2013, 3, 598–620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Chaphalkar, N.B.; Patil, S.K. Decision Support System for Dispute Resolution in Construction Contracts. KSCE J. Civ. Eng. 2012, 16, 499–504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chaphalkar, N.B.; Iyer, K.C.; Patil, S.K. Prediction of Outcome of Construction Dispute Claims Using Multilayer Perceptron Neural Network Model. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2015, 33, 1827–1835. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Adamu, P.I.; Akinwumi, I.I.; Okagbue, H.I. Reactive Project Scheduling: Minimizing Delays in the Completion Times of Projects. Asian J. Civ. Eng. 2019, 20, 1189–1202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- El-Sewafy, T.S.; Waly, A.F.; El-Monayeri, O.D. Framework for the Successful Implementation of Dispute Boards in Construction Projects. J. Leg. Aff. Disput. Resolut. Eng. Constr. 2022, 14, 04521049. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, X.; He, Q.; Zhang, X.; Cao, T.; Liu, Y. What Motivates Stakeholders to Engage in Collaborative Innovation in the Infrastructure Megaprojects? J. Civ. Eng. Manag. 2021, 27, 579–594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Seneviratne, K.; Michael, G.V. Disputes in Time Bar Provisions for Contractors ’ Claims in Standard Form of Contracts. Int. J. Constr. Manag. 2018, 20, 335–346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arditi, D.; Asce, M.; Pulket, T. Predicting the Outcome of Construction Litigation Using Boosted Decision Trees. J. Comput. Civ. Eng. 2005, 19, 387–393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mittal, Y.K.; Paul, V.K.; Rostami, A.; Riley, M.; Sawhney, A. Delay Factors in Construction of Healthcare Infrastructure Projects: A Comparison amongst Developing Countries. Asian J. Civ. Eng. 2020, 21, 649–661. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chou, J.S.; Hsu, S.C.; Lin, C.W.; Chang, Y.C. Classifying Influential for Project Information to Discover Rule Sets for Project Disputes and Possible Resolutions. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2016, 34, 1706–1716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Harmon, K.M. Case Study as to the Effectiveness of Dispute Review Boards on the Central Artery/Tunnel Project. J. Leg. Aff. Disput. Resolut. Eng. Constr. 2009, 1, 18–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hashem, M.; Mehany, M.S.; Grigg, N. Delay Claims in Road Construction: Best Practices for a Standard Delay Claims Management System. J. Leg. Aff. Disput. Resolut. Eng. Constr. 2016, 8, 02516001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Elziny, A.A.; Mohamadien, M.A.; Ibrahim, H.M.; Abdel Fattah, M.K. An Expert System to Manage Dispute Resolutions in Construction Projects in Egypt. Ain Shams Eng. J. 2016, 7, 57–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Tazelaar, F.; Snijders, C. Dispute Resolution and Litigation in the Construction Industry. Evidence on Conflicts and Conflict Resolution in The Netherlands and Germany. J. Purch. Supply Manag. 2010, 16, 221–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Naji, K.K.; Mansour, M.M.; Gunduz, M. Methods for Modeling and Evaluating Construction Disputes: A Critical Review. IEEE Access 2020, 8, 45641–45652. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cakmak, E.; Cakmak, P.I. An Analysis of Causes of Disputes in the Construction Industry Using Analytical Network Process. Procedia–Soc. Behav. Sci. 2014, 109, 183–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, Z. The Study on Law Disputes in Construction Project Contract Relationship. Phys. Procedia 2012, 33, 1999–2004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Illankoon, I.M.C.S.; Tam, V.W.Y.; Le, K.N.; Ranadewa, K.A.T.O. Causes of Disputes, Factors Affecting Dispute Resolution and Effective Alternative Dispute Resolution for Sri Lankan Construction Industry. Int. J. Constr. Manag. 2022, 22, 218–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jayasinghe, H.M.; Ramachandra, T. Adjudication Practice and Its Enforceability in the Sri Lankan Construction Industry. J. Leg. Aff. Disput. Resolut. Eng. Constr. 2016, 8, C4515005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kalyan, B.H.S.; Prakash, A.A. Case Studies on Dispute Resolutions in Construction Projects for Framing an Expert Solution. Int. J. Recent Technol. Eng. 2019, 8, 476–483. [Google Scholar]
- Cheung, S.O.; Yiu, T.W.; Yeung, S.F. A Study of Styles and Outcomes in Construction Dispute Negotiation. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2006, 132, 805–814. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, C.K.; Yiu, T.W.; Cheung, S.O. Selection and Use of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) in Construction Projects–Past and Future Research. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2016, 34, 494–507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mohamed, H.H.; Ibrahim, A.H.; Soliman, A.A. Reducing Construction Disputes through Effective Claims Management. Am. J. Civ. Eng. Archit. 2014, 2, 186–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- El-adaway, I.; Fawzy, S.; Allard, T.; Runnels, A. Change Order Provisions under National and International Standard Forms of Contract. J. Leg. Aff. Disput. Resolut. Eng. Constr. 2016, 8, 03716001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ezeldin, A.S.; Abu Helw, A. Proposed Force Majeure Clause for Construction Contracts under Civil and Common Laws. J. Leg. Aff. Disput. Resolut. Eng. Constr. 2018, 10, 04518005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mackaay, E. The Civil Law of Contract. SSRN Electron. J. 2011, 6, 424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chaphalkar, N.; Iyer, K.C. Factors Influencing Decisions on Delay Claims in Construction Contracts for Indian Scenario. Australas. J. Constr. Econ. Build. 2014, 14, 32–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aibinu, A.A. The Relationship between Distribution of Control, Fairness and Potential for Dispute in the Claims Handling Process. Constr. Manag. Econ. 2006, 24, 45–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Yao, H.; Chen, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Du, B. Contractual and Relational Enforcement in the Aftermath of Contract Violations: The Role of Contracts and Trust. Int. J. Manag. Proj. Bus. 2021, 14, 1359–1382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ottesen, J.L.; Migliaccio, G.C.; James Wulfsberg, H. Contractual Battles for Higher Ground: Case Examples. J. Leg. Aff. Disput. Resolut. Eng. Constr. 2016, 8, C5015001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Al Malki, Y.M.; Alam, M.S. Construction Claims, Their Types and Causes in the Private Construction Industry in the Kingdom of Bahrain. Asian J. Civ. Eng. 2021, 22, 477–484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rauzana, A. Causes of Conflicts and Disputes in Construction Projects. IOSR J. Mech. Civ. Eng. 2016, 13, 44–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alshihri, S.; Al-Gahtani, K.; Almohsen, A. Risk Factors That Lead to Time and Cost Overruns of Building Projects in Saudi Arabia. Buildings 2022, 12, 902. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kroll-Smith, S.; Westervelt, S.D.; Marshall, B.K.; Picou, J.S.; Schlichtmann, J.R. Special Issue on Toxic Torts and Environmental Justice Technological Disasters, Litigation Stress, and the Use of Alternative Dispute Resolution Mechanisms Technological Disasters, Litigation Stress, and the Use of Alternative Dispute Resolution Mechanisms. Law Policy 2004, 26, 289–307. [Google Scholar]
- Tanriverdi, C.; Atasoy, G.; Dikmen, I.; Birgonul, M.T. Causal Mapping to Explore Emergence of Construction Disputes. J. Civ. Eng. Manag. 2021, 27, 288–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Akal, A.Y. What Are the Readability Issues in Sub-Contracting’s Tender Documents? Buildings 2022, 12, 839. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jaffar, N.; Abdul Tharim, A.H.; Shuib, M.N. Factors of Conflict in Construction Industry: A Literature Review. Procedia Eng. 2011, 20, 193–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ansari, R.; Khalilzadeh, M.; Taherkhani, R.; Antucheviciene, J.; Migilinskas, D.; Moradi, S. Performance Prediction of Construction Projects Based on the Causes of Claims: A System Dynamics Approach. Sustainability 2022, 14, 4138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mitkus, S.; Mitkus, T. Causes of Conflicts in a Construction Industry: A Communicational Approach. Procedia-Soc. Behav. Sci. 2014, 110, 777–786. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Peckiene, A.; Komarovska, A.; Ustinovicius, L. Overview of Risk Allocation between Construction Parties. Procedia Eng. 2013, 57, 889–894. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Mahmoud, A.H. Factors Affecting Performance at the Iraqi Construction Projects, Ministry of Construction, and Housing and Municipalities and Public Works of Iraq as a Case Study. Asian J. Civ. Eng. 2020, 21, 105–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Getahun, A. Assessment of Construction Dispute Resolution in Ethiopian Somali Regional State Road Projects: A Case Study on Road Projects in the Region. Am. J. Civ. Eng. 2016, 4, 282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Dixit, S. Study of Factors Affecting the Performance of Construction Projects in AEC Industry. Organ. Technol. Manag. Constr. 2020, 12, 2275–2282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Adeyemi, B.S.; Chong, H.Y.; Zin, R.M.; Dixit, S.; Access, O. Selection of Dispute Resolution Methods: Factor Analysis Approach. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 2012, 19, 428–443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arditi, D.; Pattanakitchamroon, T. Selecting a Delay Analysis Method in Resolving Construction Claims. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2006, 24, 145–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, J.; Ham, Y.; Yi, J.S. Construction Disputes and Associated Contractual Knowledge Discovery Using Unstructured Text-Heavy Data: Legal Cases in the United Kingdom. Sustainability 2021, 13, 9403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fan, H.; Li, H. Retrieving Similar Cases for Alternative Dispute Resolution in Construction Accidents Using Text Mining Techniques. Autom. Constr. 2013, 34, 85–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bagherian-Marandi, N.; Ravanshadnia, M.; Akbarzadeh-T, M.R. Two-Layered Fuzzy Logic-Based Model for Predicting Court Decisions in Construction Contract Disputes. Artif. Intell. Law 2021, 29, 453–484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Elawi, G.S.A.; Algahtany, M.; Kashiwagi, D. Owners’ Perspective of Factors Contributing to Project Delay: Case Studies of Road and Bridge Projects in Saudi Arabia. Procedia Eng. 2016, 145, 1402–1409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Multiple Causes | |||
---|---|---|---|
Case No. | Point of Argument | Causes Categorized | Judgment |
WP No. 17337 of 2022 | Seeking demolition of unsafe construction. | Performance, payment, contractual, demolition of building | The authorities are made responsible for approvals. Demolition is justified as it holds a threat to the safety of residents. The payments need to be returned. |
WP No. 17952 of 2022 | Compensation for poor construction quality | Performance, compensation, payment, demolition of building | The contractor is held responsible for repair works or new construction according to the will of the petitioner. |
WP No. 17707 of 2022 | Illegal construction causing problem, | Land acquisition, contractual, illegal, demolition of building, | The authorities are made responsible for maintaining legality of the construction work causing no inconvenience to the petitioner are accordingly demolish any illegal construction. |
WP No. 178 of 2020 | Construction affecting the soil fertility, compensation demanded | Land acquisition, contractual, illegal, demolition of building, | Since the construction is temporary and no evidence shows the damaged quality of land, the petition is dismissed. |
Co. PET 759 of 2014 | Compensation for poor construction quality | Performance, compensation, payment, demolition of building | Contractor is held responsible for repair works or a new construction according to the will of the petitioner. This was based on the corruption charges being true. |
WP (MD) No. 13460 of 2014 | Usage of workers violating contractual norms | Payment, contractual, illegal, demolition of building | Laborers have to be used only for construction purposes and should be paid more if they are employed for any other works. |
WP No. 4042 of 2004 | Compensation for poor construction quality | Performance, compensation, payment, demolition of building | Compensation is not justified as the fault in construction is not identified during an early stage which is the primary job of the petitioner. Hence, contractor cannot be held responsible for compensation. |
Triple Causes | |||
WP No. 18223 of 2022 | No clearance of bills for the works executed | Performance, payment, contractual | Based on the evidence, payment for the works carried out has to be made with adequate compensation for the delays. |
WP No. 18245 of 2022 | Demolition of deviation structure | Performance, contractual, demolition of building | Local authorities are held responsible for the approval of deviation structure. Ordered to demolish and compensate the affected party. |
WP No. 16460 of 2022 | Construction by deviation of sanctioned plan | Compensation, Land acquisition, demolition of building | Changes in the plan are in accordance with the revised by-laws. However, inconvenience to the petitioner has to be compensated by the authorities |
WP No. 17962 of 2022 | Contractual discrepancies | Performance, payment, contractual | Fault in the contract is a false claim. Norms are satisfied and therefore payments are to be made. |
WP 328 of 2002 | Denial of payment citing poor performance | Performance, payment, contractual | Contractual clauses being ambiguous cannot be attributed to poor performance on part of the contractor. Therefore, payment has to be made as per the contract. |
WP No. 16626 of 2022 | Non release of bill amounts worth 1500000 | Performance, compensation, payment | Unjustified delays in payments citing lack of funds are unacceptable. Payments with 12% interest have to be made. |
WP No. 17975 of 2022 | No clearance of bills for the works executed | Performance, payment, contractual | Based on the facts of the evidence, payment for the works carried out has to be made with adequate compensation for the delays. |
WP No. 17722 of 2022 | Compensation for poor construction quality | Performance, compensation, Payment | Since the authority has taken up the responsibility of poor construction, compensation in the form of rents are to be paid. |
WP No. 15067 of 2022 | The compensation amount for land acquisition is insufficient | Compensation, Land acquisition, contractual | The compensation process aided deficit payment as middlemen were involved. The payments need to be completed and only then can construction take place. |
WP No. 18751 of 2022 | Deduction from the amount of refund. | Performance, compensation, contractual | Although poor quality construction is observed, the compensation demanded is way too high. Hence, deduction is allowed. |
WP No. 15195 of 2022 | Compensation for contractual breach. | Compensation, contractual, illegal | Contractual norms not followed in construction. Therefore compensation needs to be paid. |
WP No. 17697 of 2022 | Reconstruction due to poor quality | Performance, payment, demolition of building. | The claim that construction was done by using poor quality materials doesn’t have evidence as such compensation is not liable. |
AP 24 of 2020 | Compensation for poor construction quality | Performance, compensation, payment | Material shortage is identified during technical examination. Balance work is not satisfactory, therefore compensation has to be paid. |
WP No 161 of 2020 | Flats delivered after long postponement | Performance, payment, demolition of building. | Compensations are to be paid as the delay is not justified with an interest of 15% p.a |
AP 130 of 2017 | Construction is poor with prolonged delays | Performance, compensation, payment | Government authorities couldn’t justify the delays as a result; compensation needs to be paid. |
CA No. 4921 of 2016 | Demolition of illegal construction. | Compensation, contractual, illegal | Illegal construction is to be demolished. Irrespective of the lapse in time, compensation cannot be claimed as it is a violated construction. Hence demolition is justified. |
CS (COMM) 914 of 2016 | Land acquired used for other purpose than contractually stated | Compensation, Land acquisition, contractual | Although the acquired land is given by consent, it is being used for the construction of a flyover rather than a bypass road. This is unacceptable and has to be stopped. |
WP. No. 12809 of 2015 | Arbitral award being challenged. | Performance, payment, contractual | Arbitral award being challenged which states that payment has to be made is upheld. Along with which interest also has to be paid for the escalated amount. |
WA. No. 88 of 2012 | Seeking exemption from compensating amount that is insured. | Performance, insurance, demolition of the building | Due to the lack of evidence that argues opposing the insured amount, the case has been dismissed and amount needs to be paid accordingly. |
Arbitration petition No. 6 of 2009 | Arbitral award being challenged | Performance, payment, contractual | Adding to the faulty construction, which was not the fault of the contractor, bills were not cleared. Therefore the arbitral award is wrong and has to be changed. |
RP No. 1147 of 2007 | Contractual clause violation | Performance, compensation, contractual | The contractual clause states that the construction shouldn’t be done on the first floor. Hence breach of contract is observed and hence needs to be demolished. |
OMP 152 of 1984 | Un satisfactory arbitral award | Performance, payment, contractual | Arbitral award was challenged but evidence wasn’t present to support the claim. Hence the award is valid and need no objections for the same. |
Dual Causes | |||
WP No. 18232 of 2022 | Supply of low quality materials | Performance, payment | Materials supplied with respect to the payments made in accordance with the contract. The contractor is found not guilty. |
WP No. 18224 of 2022 | Contractual clause violation | Contractual, performance | Since the contract specifies avoidance of certain materials in construction, breach of contract is identified. Reconstruction ordered. |
WP No. 18234 of 2022 | Non payment of bills citing poor performance | Performance, payment | Compensations are to be paid as the delay is not justified with an interest of 12% p.a |
WP No. 16663 of 2022 | Usage of materials not mentioned in the contract | Performance, contractual | Work needs to be done with quality materials. Repair work needs to be carried out and compensation to be paid accordingly. |
WP No. 16824 of 2022 | Payment denial due to poor quality construction | Performance, payment | No evidence with respect to poor performance was found. Therefore, payments have to be done as per the arbitrational award. |
WP No. 17957 of 2022 | No clearance of bills for the works executed | Performance, compensation | Based on the evidence, payment for the works carried out has to be made with adequate compensation for the delays. |
WP No. 15062 of 2022 | Quality of construction termed faulty. | Performance, contractual | Contractual clauses being ambiguous cannot be attributed to poor performance on part of the contractor. |
WP No. 15065 of 2022 | Illegal construction causing problem, seeking approval for demolition | Contractual, illegal | The authorities are made responsible for maintaining the legality of the construction work causing no inconvenience to the petitioner and accordingly demolishing any illegal construction. |
WP No. 15203 of 2022 | Illegal construction causing problems, seeking approval for demolition | Illegal, demolition of building | The authorities are made responsible for maintaining legality of the construction work causing no inconvenience to the petitioner are accordingly demolish any illegal construction. |
WP No. 15203 of 2022 | Road widening issue. | Land acquisition, contractual | In view of public interest, land acquired is justified as the petitioner also agreed before. |
WP No. 15219 of 2022 | Legality of construction | Contractual, illegal | As long as the construction is according to norms, which in this case is, the legality cannot be questioned. |
WP No. 17713 of 2022 | No clearance of bills for the works executed | Performance, payment | Based on the facts of the evidence, payment for the works carried out has to be made with adequate compensation for the delays. |
WP No. 15068 of 2022 | Contractual breach | Land acquisition, contractual | Land acquired more than that specified in the contract. Excess land needs to be handed over. |
WP No. 17706 of 2022 | Contractual breach with respect to poor construction quality | Performance, contractual | Work quality is un satisfactory and not according to contractual norms. Work has to be redone. |
CA. 304–306 of 2004 | Contract norms being challenged | Contractual, demolitions of building | Fault in the contract is a false claim. Norms have to be satisfied irrespective of anything for awarding the contract. |
WP. No. 748 of 2017 | Payment denial due to poor quality construction | Performance, payment | No evidence to prove that the quality of work was unsatisfactory. Therefore, payment has to be made. |
C.A No. 9128 of 2003 | Dispute about material quality used in construction. | Performance, contractual | Work needs to be done with quality materials and arbitration wasn’t performed at the right time. |
OMP 208/2006 | Compensation amount for land acquisition is insufficient | Land acquisition, compensation | Compensation process aided deficit payment as middlemen were involved. The payments need to be completed and only then construction can take place. |
WP No. 35782 of 2016 | Petition for need of arbitration | Performance, contractual | Arbitrational requirement is cancelled as there is no evidence for poor quality of work as per petitioner. |
WP No. 35879 of 2017 | Poor performance claim being challenged | Performance, payment | No evidence with respect to poor performance was found. Therefore, payments have to be done as per the arbitrational award. |
OMP 75 of 2006 | Reconstruction / compensation due to poor quality | Performance, compensation | The claim that construction was done by using poor quality materials doesn’t have evidence as such compensation is not liable. |
WP No. 12773 of 2013 | Rejection of contract unjustified | Performance, contractual | Expertise is required to execute such work which is not with the petitioner (contractor). Hence the contract not being awarded to the petitioner is justified. |
CS (OS) 503 of 2009 | Local authority obstruction for construction | Contractual, illegal | Work being executed following norms and according to the contractual clauses, need not be halted. Authorities shall not interfere in the process as the construction is not illegal. |
CA No. 99 of 2017 | The legality of the construction being challenged | Illegal, demolition of building | Approvals took during the time of construction 40 years ago as per laws and regulations. Citing the same for the present scenario is unfair. Hence construction is legal. |
AP No. 9 of 2019 | Unjustified reasoning over shifting of construction | Land acquisition, contractual | Place shifted from disputed area as it falls under forest land. Therefore it is shifted and hence the petition is approved. |
WP No 16715 of 2021 | Flats delivered after long postponement | Performance, payment | Compensations are to be paid as the delay is not justified with an interest of 12% p.a |
AP 12 of 2020 | Construction is poor with prolonged delays | Performance, payment | Irresponsible delays adding to increase in prices which are unjustified. Citing increase in prices, low quality materials were used. Compensation has to be paid. |
AP 12 of 2019 | Contractual breach with respect to poor construction quality | Performance, contractual | Even after repeated complaints, performance is not improved. Therefore, arbitrational award is revised in favour of buyer. |
WP No. 17714 of 2022 | Contractual breach with respect to poor construction quality | Performance, contractual | Work quality is un satisfactory and not according to contractual norms. Work has to be redone. |
Singular Cause | |||
WP No. 18470 of 2022 | Contractual clause violation | Contractual | Since the contract specifies avoidance of certain materials in construction, breach of contract is identified. Reconstruction ordered. |
WP No. 17361 of 2022 | Award of the contract is restricted | Contractual | For awarding the contract, various parameters have to be considered. Failure to meet them will cause losing the contract. Hence no fault was found. |
WP No. 18090 of 2021 | Demand for a refund due to changes in plot allotment. | Contractual | Irrespective of the previous confirmations, due to the changes in plot allotment, refund has to be given. Contractual clauses are not to be amended at a later stage. |
WP No. 526 of 2020 | Payment issues due to delays. Compensation expected | Payment | The buyer is not responsible for the delay. Therefore, construction according to previous rates needs to be compensated accordingly. |
WA 1498 of 1990 | Award of contract being restricted | Contractual | For awarding the contract various parameters have to be considered. Failure to meet them will cause loosing the contract. Hence no fault found. |
WP No. 17711 of 2022 | Payment issues due to delays. Compensation expected | Payment | The buyer is not responsible for the delay. Therefore, construction according to previous rates needs to be compensated accordingly. |
WP No. 17721 of 2022 | Compensation for poor construction quality | Performance | No evidence found with regard to poor quality construction. Therefore, compensation need not be paid. |
Cause | Attributes |
---|---|
Poor performance | Delays on part of the contractor |
Unsatisfactory work quality | |
Changes incorporated apart from contractual agreements. | |
Material discrepancies | |
Non Payment | Changes in contractual agreements |
Adamant non payment | |
Deductions | |
Non releasing of deposits | |
Unjustified delays for payment by the owner | |
Land Acquisition | Unjust acquiring of land |
Unfair Compensation | |
Occupation without consent | |
Illegal | - |
Contractual | Intermediate changes in contract |
Delays in approvals | |
Insufficient documents | |
Ambiguities in contracts | |
Insurance | - |
Demolition of building | Illegal construction |
Lack of communication between the authorities and owners | |
Differences between neighbors and owners | |
Personal vengeance | |
Compensation | Denial of compensation |
Delays in compensation | |
Compensated amount not satisfactory | |
Increase interest rates for compensation |
Causes | Occurrence (No. of Times) |
---|---|
Performance | 41 |
Contractual | 36 |
Payment | 30 |
Compensation | 18 |
Demolition of building | 15 |
Illegal | 10 |
Land Acquisition | 8 |
Insurance | 2 |
Causes | Mean | Standard Deviation |
---|---|---|
Performance | 0.631 | 0.486 |
Compensation | 0.277 | 0.451 |
Land Acquisition | 0.123 | 0.331 |
Insurance | 0.031 | 0.174 |
Payment | 0.462 | 0.502 |
Contractual | 0.554 | 0.501 |
Illegal | 0.154 | 0.363 |
Demolition of building | 0.231 | 0.424 |
Performance | Compensation | Land Acquisition | Insurance | Payment | Contractual | Illegal | Demolition of Building | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Spearman’s rho | Performance | CC | 1.000 | 0.046 | −0.490 ** | 0.136 | 0.453 ** | −0.302 * | −0.557 ** | −0.035 |
Sig. (2-tailed) | - | 0.716 | 0.000 | 0.279 | 0.000 | 0.015 | 0.000 | 0.782 | ||
N | 65 | 65 | 65 | 65 | 65 | 65 | 65 | 65 | ||
Compensation | CC | 0.046 | 1.000 | 0.187 | −0.110 | −0.021 | −0.275 * | −0.073 | −0.013 | |
Sig. (2-tailed) | 0.716 | - | 0.136 | 0.382 | 0.867 | 0.027 | 0.562 | 0.921 | ||
N | 65 | 65 | 65 | 65 | 65 | 65 | 65 | 65 | ||
Land Acquisition | CC | −0.490 ** | 0.187 | 1.000 | −0.067 | −0.347 ** | 0.148 | 0.100 | 0.128 | |
Sig. (2-tailed) | 0.000 | 0.136 | - | 0.597 | 0.005 | 0.240 | 0.429 | 0.309 | ||
N | 65 | 65 | 65 | 65 | 65 | 65 | 65 | 65 | ||
Insurance | CC | 0.136 | −0.110 | −0.067 | 1.000 | −0.165 | −0.199 | −0.076 | 0.325 ** | |
Sig. (2-tailed) | 0.279 | 0.0382 | 0.597 | - | 0.189 | 0.113 | 0.548 | 0.008 | ||
N | 65 | 65 | 65 | 65 | 65 | 65 | 65 | 65 | ||
Payment | CC | 0.453 ** | −0.021 | −0.347 ** | −0.165 | 1.000 | −0.411 ** | −0.224 | −0.068 | |
Sig. (2-tailed) | 0.000 | 0.867 | 0.005 | 0.189 | - | 0.001 | 0.073 | 0.593 | ||
N | 65 | 65 | 65 | 65 | 65 | 65 | 65 | 65 | ||
Contractual | CC | −0.302 * | −0.275 * | 0.148 | −0.199 | −0.411 ** | 1.000 | 0.211 | −0.096 | |
Sig. (2-tailed) | 0.015 | 0.027 | 0.240 | 0.113 | 0.001 | - | 0.091 | 0.447 | ||
N | 65 | 65 | 65 | 65 | 65 | 65 | 65 | 65 | ||
Illegal | CC | −0.557 ** | −0.073 | 0.100 | −0.076 | −0.224 | 0.211 | 1.000 | 0.171 | |
Sig. (2-tailed) | 0.000 | 0.562 | 0.429 | 0.548 | 0.073 | 0.091 | - | 0.173 | ||
N | 65 | 65 | 65 | 65 | 65 | 65 | 65 | 65 | ||
Demolition of building | CC | −0.035 | −0.013 | 0.128 | 0.325 ** | −0.068 | −0.096 | 0.171 | 1.000 | |
Sig. (2-tailed) | 0.782 | 0.921 | 0.309 | 0.008 | 0.593 | 0.447 | 0.173 | - | ||
N | 65 | 65 | 65 | 65 | 65 | 65 | 65 | 65 |
Test | Values | |
---|---|---|
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. | 0.509 | |
Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity | Approximate. Chi-Square | 106.112 |
df | 28 | |
Sig. | 0.000 |
Causes | Initial | Extraction |
---|---|---|
Performance | 1.000 | 0.741 |
Compensation | 1.000 | 0.764 |
Land Acquisition | 1.000 | 0.632 |
Insurance | 1.000 | 0.717 |
Payment | 1.000 | 0.534 |
Contractual | 1.000 | 0.646 |
Illegal | 1.000 | 0.414 |
Demolition of building | 1.000 | 0.620 |
Initial Eigenvalues | Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings | Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Component | Total | % of Variance | Cumulative % | Total | % of Variance | Cumulative % | Total | % of Variance | Cumulative % |
1 | 2.364 | 29.552 | 29.552 | 2.364 | 29.552 | 29.552 | 2.361 | 29.511 | 29.511 |
2 | 1.426 | 17.829 | 47.381 | 1.426 | 17.829 | 47.381 | 1.423 | 17.786 | 47.297 |
3 | 1.278 | 15.975 | 63.356 | 1.278 | 15.975 | 63.356 | 1.285 | 16.059 | 63.356 |
Causes | Component 1 | Component 2 | Component 3 |
---|---|---|---|
Performance | −0.854 | ||
Payment | −0.713 | ||
Land Acquisition | 0.624 | ||
Illegal | 0.623 | ||
Contractual | 0.556 | ||
Insurance | 0.834 | ||
Demolition of building | 0.768 | ||
Compensation | 0.868 |
Attribute/Variable Name | Factor Loading (Component Score) | % of Loading | |
---|---|---|---|
Performance | 0.854 | 29.511% | |
Payment | |||
Land Acquisition | |||
Illegal | |||
Contractual | |||
Insurance | 0.834 | 17.786% | |
Demolition of building | |||
Compensation | 0.868 | 16.059% | |
Total Variance Explained | 63.356% |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Hemanth Sai Kalyan, B.; Sekar, A.; Sindhu Nachiar, S.; Ravichandran, P.T. Discerning Recurrent Factors in Construction Disputes through Judicial Case Studies—An Indian Perspective. Buildings 2022, 12, 2229. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings12122229
Hemanth Sai Kalyan B, Sekar A, Sindhu Nachiar S, Ravichandran PT. Discerning Recurrent Factors in Construction Disputes through Judicial Case Studies—An Indian Perspective. Buildings. 2022; 12(12):2229. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings12122229
Chicago/Turabian StyleHemanth Sai Kalyan, B., Anandh Sekar, S. Sindhu Nachiar, and P. T. Ravichandran. 2022. "Discerning Recurrent Factors in Construction Disputes through Judicial Case Studies—An Indian Perspective" Buildings 12, no. 12: 2229. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings12122229