#F-5
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ O.M.P. 231/1998
R.C. JAIN ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Sandeep Sharma with
Mr. Vikas Sharma,
Advocates
versus
SAMANT BHADRA COOP.
GROUP HOUSING SOCIETY
LTD. ..... Respondent
Through Mr. Raman Kapur with
Mrs. Francesca. Kapur,
Advocates
% Date of Decision : JANUARY 20th, 2010
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No.
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No.
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No.
JUDGMENT
MANMOHAN, J (ORAL) I.A. 1818/2006
1. By way of the present application, objections under Sections 30 and 33 of Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1940") have been filed by the respondent-cooperative society challenging the Award dated 28th March, 2002 passed by Mr. C. Rama Rao, learned Umpire.
O.M.P. 231/1998 Page 1 of 5
2. Briefly stated the facts relevant for this case are that respondent- objector, which is a group housing cooperative society having 210 members, awarded the contract to the petitioner-contractor vide Agreement dated 31st May, 1989 for construction of 210 dwelling units at Plot No. 37, Sector 13, Rohini, Delhi - 110 085.
3. Since disputes and differences arose between the petitioner- contractor and the respondent-cooperative society and as the contract contained an arbitration clause, petitioner-contractor appointed Shri K.L. Sehgal, former Managing Director of NIDC as Co-Arbitrator on 04th November, 1994 and respondent-cooperative society appointed Shri R.S. Gupta, former Engineer Member of Delhi Development Authority as Co-Arbitrator on 23rd December, 1994. Both the Arbitrators appointed Shri C. Rama Rao, retired Director General of Works, CPWD as the Umpire.
4. Petitioner-contractor preferred 14 claims and respondent- cooperative society filed 12 counter claims before the Arbitrators. After the Arbitrators had conducted 37 hearings, one of the Arbitrators, Shri R.S. Gupta, unfortunately expired. In his place, respondent- cooperative society appointed Shri Harish Chander, retired Director General of Works, CPWD as Co-Arbitrator. These two Arbitrators conducted 72 hearings. However, the two Arbitrators differed in their findings and they could not arrive at a consensus. Accordingly, Arbitrators referred the case to the Umpire vide their letter dated 20 th O.M.P. 231/1998 Page 2 of 5 March, 2001.
5. I find that the Umpire held 32 hearings and ultimately published the impugned Award on 28th March, 2002. The Umpire filed the aforesaid original Award and the proceedings in the present petition.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent-cooperative society submitted that the Umpire mis-conducted himself and, therefore, the Award was liable to be set aside under Sections 30 and 33 of the Act, 1940.
7. Upon perusal of the objection application, I find that all the grounds raised are on merits and the present application proceeds on the basis that this Court is an appellate authority against an award passed by the Arbitrator.
8. I also find that the Umpire who is a retired Director General of Works, CPWD, was well conversant with the kind of disputes he was adjudicating. The Award dated 28th March, 2002 runs into 80 pages and detailed reasoning has been given by the Umpire against each of the claims and counter claims. I also find that the impugned Award is in consonance with the contractual terms inasmuch as the contract explicitly provides for payment of escalation to the contractor.
9. A Division Bench of this Court in D.D.A. vs. Bhagat O.M.P. 231/1998 Page 3 of 5 Construction Pvt. Ltd. reported in (2004) 3 ALR 548 has held that Court will not substitute its opinion for that of the Arbitrator. The Arbitrator in the aforesaid case was a retired Chief Engineer of CPWD and this Court held that he was very well conversant with the kinds of disputes he was adjudicating. It was also held that Court will not substitute its own view even if the Court came to a different conclusion until and unless the decision of the Arbitrator was manifestly perverse or had been arrived at on the basis of wrong application of law. It was also held that it was well settled principle of law that an Arbitrator need not disclose with mathematical precision the breakup of the amount awarded. If the award shows application of mind and a view which is plausible, it should not be interfered with.
10. In the present case, the Umpire has given plausible reasons in detail after dealing with all the claims and counter claims. I do not find that the Umpire has mis-conducted himself in any manner. In fact, the Award is a well reasoned one.
11. I find that the contract was awarded in the year 1989 and sufficiently long time has been spent in litigation before the Arbitrators as well as the Umpire and thereafter, in the present objections filed by the respondent-cooperative society. As the respondent is a cooperative society, in my view, ends of justice would be met if the rate of interest awarded by the Umpire is reduced to 5%.
O.M.P. 231/1998 Page 4 of 5
12. Accordingly, the objections under Sections 30 and 33 of Act, 1940 filed by the respondent-cooperative society are allowed only insofar as the rate of interest is concerned which shall stand reduced from 15% per annum as awarded by the Umpire to 5% per annum simple interest throughout the period. The remaining objections are dismissed and the Award dated 28th March, 2002, subject to above modification, is made rule of the Court.
13. The respondent is given six months' time to make the payment in terms of this order. However, if the entire payment is not made then the respondent society shall be liable to pay simple interest @ 9 % per annum on the amount of Rs.30,79,518/- w.e.f. 11th January, 1995 till realisation. Registry is directed to prepare a decree-sheet in terms thereof.
14. With the aforesaid observations, present petition and application stand disposed of.
MANMOHAN, J.
JANUARY 20th, 2010 rn/js O.M.P. 231/1998 Page 5 of 5