Jaswant Rai vs Delhi Development Authority
1994 Latest Caselaw 165 Del

JUDGMENT

Mohd. Shamim, J.

(1) This is a petition under Sections 14, 17 & 29 of the Arbitration Act for issue of a direction to respondent No.2 to file the award and to make the same a rule of the Court.

(2) Brief facts which gave rise to the present petition are as under: that the petitioner herein entered into an agreement with respondent No. 1 for the construction of Transit Camp at Pandav Nagar. The above said contract contained an arbitration clause to the effect that in case of disputes in between the parties the same were to be referred to arbitration. The disputes arose in between the parties and the same were referred to respondent No. 2 Shri S.C.Gupta for adjudication. Shri S.C.Gupta i.e. respondent No.2 made and published his award on June 27, 1990. It has thus been prayed that the said award be made a rule of the Court.

(3) The award was filed before this Court on January 7,1991. The notice of the filing of the award was served on the petitioner on January 22,1991. The petitioner, however, did not choose to file any objection against the said award.

(4) Respondent No. 1, on the other hand, filed objections against the award, being Ia No. 12021/91. It has been urged for and on behalf of the respondent through their objections that the impugned award is not a reasoned award. The Arbitrator was under an obligation, vide Clause 25 of the agreement, to give out reasons for arriving at his conclusions. However, for the best reasons known to him he did not do so and awarded a sum of Rs. 31,500.00 on account of the damages to the petitioner. The said conclusion of the Arbitrator is arbitrary and is not supported by any reason, whatsoever. Hence, the said award is liable to be set aside.

(5) The following issues were framed:- (I)Whether the award dated June 27,1990 is liable to be set aside for the reasons stated in para 2 of the objections filed by the respondent? (ii) Relief, if any.

(6) It is manifest from above that the respondent through their present objections have challenged the findings of the Arbitrator only in respect of claim No. 8 where through the Arbitrator awarded a sum of Rs. 31,500.00 against a claim of Rs. 72,000.00 made by the contractor.

(7) It has been urged for and on behalf of the respondent that a close scrutiny of the finding of the Arbitrator on claim No. 8 reveals that the Arbitrator has not cared even to give out his thought-process. There is absolutely nothing to show as to how the Arbitrator granted the sum of Rs. 31,500.00 by way of damages to the contractor. According to the learned Counsel, a solemn duty was cast on the shoulders of the Arbitrator to give out reasons for arriving at his conclusions. The Arbitrator, however, for the best reasons known to him, it is contended, flung to the winds the mandate of Clause 25 and gave a finding which is not supported by any reason, whatsoever.

(8) Learned Counsel for the petitioner Mr. Rajappan, on the other hand, has contended that the Arbiter has given out cogent reasons for arriving at his conclusions and the impugned award cannot be varied on the said account. The Arbitrator is under no obligation to write a detailed judgment. In case he is required to do so the very purpose of the arbitration would be frustrated. The idea underlying behind the enactment of the Arbitration Act is to quicken the pace of the disposal and to grant speedy justice to the litigants. It would be unjust & unreason- able to expect an Arbitrator to write a detailed judgment.

(9) I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties at sufficient length and have very carefully examined their rival contentions and have given my anxious thoughts thereto.

(10) It is now a well settled principle of law that the Arbitrator is under no obligation to write a detailed judgment. The Courts do not sit in judgment over the award made and published by an Arbitrator. Their function is not that of an Appellate Court and hence, they cannot appraise the evidence and cannot go into with regard to the sufficiency of the reasons given out by the Arbitrator. Similarly, they cannot go into the correctness of those reasons. They cannot also consider the reasonableness, the validity and the legality of the reasons. It is sufficient enough for an Arbitrator if he has given so much of the reasons which indicates his thought process.

(11) With the above background let us see whether in the instant case the Arbitrator has given out the reasons which can be called to be 'sufficient reasons' within the domain of Clause 25 of the arbitration agreement. A close scrutiny of the findings of the Arbitrator on claim No. 8 reveals that he awarded a sum of Rs. 31,500.00 to the contractor because the contract in the instant case was required to be completed as per the agreement by April 5, 1986, however, the work could not be completed within the stipulated period and it came to an end and was completed by January 5, 1987. Thus, according to the Arbitrator there was a delay in the completion of the work. The arbitrator has thus stated while dealing with claim No. 8 that the contractor was required to maintain his establishment during the above said period etc., watch and ward, supervisory staff etc. and was required to make arrangement with regard to other things during the extended period of the work. Had it not been so they could have removed and disbanded and shifted their staff to some other establishment and could have done some other things during the said period. While dealing with claim No. 8 the Arbitrator has further stated that it is not disputed by the respondent that the delay in the execution of the work was caused on account of the lapses on the part of the respondent. Thus, the Arbitrator instead of allowing the entire claim of the Arbitrator which was to the tune of Rs. 72,000.00 allowed a claim of Rs. 31,500 .00 only. In the above stated circumstances I feel that he was justified in doing so. He has given out cogent reasons for arriving at his conclusions and we cannot find fault with the award on the said score.

(12) In view of the above stated circumstances, the objections are hereby dismissed. The impugned award (now marked as Ex.YZ) is liable to be made a rule of the Court. The petitioner would be entitled to interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the judgment till the realisation of the decretal amount.

(13) Before parting with this judgment I would like to observe that a sum of Rs. 61,510.00 was ordered to be paid to the contractor vide order dated September 17,1993. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has stated that the said amount has been cleared.