Gujral Construction Co. vs Central Warehousing Corporation ...
1994 Latest Caselaw 436 Del

JUDGMENT

J. K. Mehra, J.

1. This order will dispose of the objections to the award dated 4.2.1988 of Mr. Guru Dayal, sole Arbitrator. On the disputes arising between the parties, the same were referred to the sole arbitration of the Arbitrator before whom the claimants filed their claim, while the respondents also filed their counter-claim. The claim of the claimants arose out of the construction of 10,000 M.T.C. godown at Central Ware House, Morena (Madhya Pradesh). The Arbitrator entered upon the reference on 17.4.1985 and time for making and publishing the award was extended from time to time. According to the award of the Arbitrator, the respondent has to pay to the claimant-petitioner a sum of Rs. 5,31,923.97 paise in full and final settlement of the claim. The Arbitrator also awarded interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of the award till the date of payment. The award has been challenged on various grounds on different claims.

2. Under claim No. 1, the only objection raised is with regard to 7% extra payment on account of the respondent splitting the site at two places instead of getting those godowns built at one place. Claim No. 2 relates to payment of only Rs. 6,800/- to compensate the contractor for extra transportation cost.

3. The respondent had made available space for building godown with 5,500 M.T.C. at its existing precincts and the second site was provided for construction of a godown for 4,500 M.T.C., which was at a distance of one and a half kilometres from the other godown. I have perused the award and I do not find any perverse p/3ty in the findings of the Arbitrator in awarding 7% extra payment to compensate the contractor for the additional costs incurred by him in constructing two godowns at different sites in place of one godowns at the site within the existing precincts of the Central Ware House or in awarding of only Rs. 6,800/- to compensate the contractor for extra transportation cost. In this connection, a reference be made to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Tea Company v. K. Shashikant Co. (Rep. as AIR 1987 SC 86) as under :

"Award cannot be set aside on the ground that Arbitrator reached wrong conclusion or he failed to appreciate facts. Under the law, the Arbitrator is made final Arbitrator of the dispute between the parties. Where the award which was a reasoned one was challenged on the ground that the Arbitrator acted contrary to the provisions of Section 70 of the Contract Act, it was held that the same. could not be set aside." As such, the objections to claims No. 1 and 2 are rejected.

4. The objection to claim No. 3 is also not sustainable because the objection shat the payment should have been made taking the basis and the rate at Rs. 21.54 per cubic metre and not per square metre, is a matter which squarely falls within the jurisdiction of the Arbitrator. He has considered the plea that square metres have been put in the Schedule along with the work order. It is a matter which has been duly considered by the Arbitrator and the plea of typographical error has already been rejected by him. It is the finding of fact and is based on the documents, construction whereof is also within the jurisdiction of the Arbitrator and that the view taken by the Arbitrator cannot be said to be not a plausible view. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Delhi Municipal Corporation v. Jagan Nath Ashok Kumar, , while dealing with a situation like this had held as under :

"The Arbitrator is the sole Judge of the quality as well as quantity of evidence and it will not be for the Supreme Court to take upon itself the task of being a Judge of the evidence before the Arbitrator. It may be possible that on the same evidence the court might have arrived at a different conclusion than the one arrived at by the Arbitrator but that by itself is no ground for setting aside the award of an Arbitrator." In that view of the matter, I find no merit in this objection to claim No. 3 which is consequently rejected.

5. In view of the principles of law discussed above, I do not find any merit in the objection to findings on claim No. 5 also, which relates to deduction of Rs. 7,000/- which has been held after due consideration by the Arbitrator to be not legitimate.

6. I find that the Arbitrator has considered the points urged before him and has duly dealt with those giving appropriate reasons for his conclusions. The jurisdiction of the court in dealing with such objections is very limited and that it is not for the court to either reappraise the evidence led before the Arbitrator or to substitute is own reasons for those given by the Arbitrator unless the reasons are totally perverse and the conclusion reached is not plausible. I find from the detailed reason given by the Arbitrator that he has already dealt with the pleas raised by the respondents under Clause 10(c) and has duly dealt with the objections relating to notice in the light of various judgments, which were cited before him. The Arbitrator has relied upon judgments in the cases of Sawan Construction Company v. Union of India (Rep. as 2nd 1977 (2) Delhi 748) and Velayati Ram Mittal v. Union of India (Rep. as 1986 (1) Arb LR 328) in reaching his decision. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goa, Daman and Diu Housing Board v. Ramakant U. P. Darvatkar has laid down that Award showing that the Arbitrator had considered all specific issues raised by parties and findings are recorded by him after giving cogent reasons, it cannot be said that Arbitrator has misconducted himself or in proceedings in matter of giving award. In the light of the above discussion, the findings of the Arbitrator cannot be faulted with and the objection is consequently dismissed.

7. Similarly, I also reject the objection to sub-para 5 of claim No. 6, which is based on calculations and detailed figures given by the Arbitrator after taking into account the evidence led before him.

8. In the light of the above discussion, the objection to Arbitrator's finding on claim No. 7, is also rejected.

9. I find that all the rest of the objections are also challenging the findings of fact by the Arbitrator and are in the nature of grounds of appeal. The law in this connection has been laid down and repeatedly stated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decisions referred to hereinabove and also in the following cases apart from various rulings of this court.

(i) Food Corporation of India v. Veshno Rice Millers, .

(ii) Hind Builders v. Union of India, .

(iii) Hindustan Tea Co. v. K. Shashikant and Co. (supra).

10. Counsel of both sides have cited a number of other rulings, which have duly considered by me, but I find it unnecessary to discuss each one of those in the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to hereinabove and followed in various cases decided by this Court. I find no merit in the objections. The same are dismissed.

11. The result of the above discussion is that the award of the Arbitrator is made rule of the Court. Let a decree be drawn up in terms of the award. The award shall form a part of the decree. The claimants shall also be entitled to simple interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of the decree till the date of payment. Suit and I.A. are disposed of. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs,