Paras Ram Sharma vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi
1994 Latest Caselaw 642 Del

JUDGMENT

Vijender Jain, J.

1. These are objections filed by the Respondent MCD under section 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act. Mr. R. P. Gupta learned counsel for the objector has argued that the Arbitrator has misconducted the proceedings as there is an error apparent on the face of the record of the case, inasmuch as while awarding sums under claims No. 3, 4, 5 and 7 the Arbitrator has awarded higher sums than the amounts claimed by the claimant. According to him under claim No. 3 the claimant has demanded a sum of Rs. 35,000/- whereas the Arbitrator has awarded a sum of Rs. 4,071/-, similarly, in relation to claims No. 4, 5 and 7 amounts claimed have been Rs. 75,000/-, Rs. 10,000/- and Rs. 9,900/- whereas the Arbitrator has awarded Rs. 81,420/-, Rs. 28,830/- and Rs. 10,800/- respectively. The next argument of Shri Gupta is that the Arbitrator has misconducted the proceedings as he has disallowed the liquidated damages which are imposed by M.C.D. which would squarely fall in the category of excepted matters and the Arbitrator has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the excepted matters. He has also cited in his support Vishwanath Sood's (Rep. in 1989 SC p. 952) case Mr. Gupta has also assailed the findings of the Arbitrator with regard to award of interest and according to him the Arbitrator has awarded interest on the interest which also is illegal. On the other hand Mr. Lakhanpal learned Counsel for the Contractor has argued that the Arbitrator has not awarded any amount in excess of the claim that in terms of the arbitration record and modification made pursuant to the reference which the claimant had authority to do. The Arbitrator has awarded the claims in relation to the modified claims made by the claimant in, relation to clause 3, 4, 5 and 7. 1 have gone through the modified claims as submitted by the claimant which is on the record of the case. In alternative Mr. Lakhanpal has argued that the objector has not taken the objection regarding claim No. 3. However, as 1 have observed earlier that claimant filed modified claims before the Arbitrator there is no need to go into this aspect of the matter. Repelling the contention of Mr. Gupta regarding the jurisdiction of the Arbitrator in dealing with the excepted matters it has been argued by the learned counsel for the claimant that it was the MCD who referred the said dispute if the same was an excepted matter to the Arbitrator and having referred the dispute and having received the award it does not lie in the mouth of the objector to turn around and assail the finding of the Arbitrator. Having submitted and referred the matter on its own volition 1 agree with the submission made by learned counsel for the claimant. The law is very clear as settled by Supreme Court in Vishwanath Sood's case (supra) that if there are expected matters the Arbitrator will not have the jurisdiction to adjudicate. If liquidated damages has been ascertained by competent authority mentioned in the arbitration agreement, it cannot be the subject matter of reference before the Arbitrator as has been laid down in Vishwanath's case (supra). But here in this case before me it is the objector who itself referred the matter to the Arbitrator and even otherwise the Arbitrator has not awarded any sum and after unsuccessfully canvassing the matter before the Arbitrator objector cannot be permitted to challenge the jurisdiction of the Arbitrator. This court is not a court of appeal. The jurisdiction of this court is circumscribed with the provisions of Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act. It is a well settled principle of law that when parties have chosen a forum of arbitration in exclusion of normal laws civil remedy this court will not sit in judgment over the award of an arbitrator. Even if the court comes to a different conclusion than that of the Arbitrator the court will not interfere. The court will only interfere if there is a manifest error apparent on the face of the record of the case or the Arbitrator has no jurisdiction or the Arbitrator has misconducted the proceedings. 1 do not see any force in the arguments of Mr. Gupta. For the reasons given above 1 do not find any merit in this case. Objections are dismissed. Award is made a rule of the court. A decree shall be passed in terms of the award. The petitioner shall be entitled to the interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of the passing of the decree till its realisation. The objections are dismissed. Suit is disposed of.