Union Of India (Uoi) vs Uppal Engineering Construction ...
1998 Latest Caselaw 978 Del

JUDGMENT

M.S.A. Siddiqui, J.

1. Under an agreement No. CEDZ-21/83-84 entered into between the petitioner and the 1st respondent in respect of the works specified therein, certain disputes arose between the parties. By the order dated 17th December, 1986, passed in Civil Suit No. 287-A of 1986, this Court appointed Brig. M.M.S. Parihar (second respondent) as the Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes between the parties. The Arbitrator made and published his award on 30th December, 1989. Thereupon, the petitioner filed an application under Section 14 of the Arbitration Act for a direction to the Arbitrator to file his award. On the said award having been filed in Court, the petitioner and the 1st respondent has filed objections thereto under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act. On the basis of the objections against the award, following issues were framed :

1. Whether the award is liable to be set aside on the grounds mentioned in objection petitions being IA No. 8968/90 and 8322/91?

2. Relief.

2. The petitioner has challenged the award on the claims No. 1 and 3 and the Counter Claim No. 1 of the 1st respondent on the ground that the same suffers from legal infirmity. The 1 st respondent has challenged the award on the counter claims Nos. 1, 2 and 3 on the ground that the same suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record. I will deal these claims in their proper order.

Claim No. 1 : The petitioner preferred a claim of Rs. 8,12,677.39 on account of extra cost incurred for completion of the work left over by the 1st respondent. The Arbitrator has allowed Rs. 3,46,696.62 only in respect of the said claim. The petitioner's grievance is that the Arbitrator has not assigned any reason for reducing the said claim. It is well settled that in a case of non-speaking award, it is not open to the Court to go into the merits of the case or to probe the mental process of the Arbitrator and speculate as to what impelled the Arbitrator to arrive at his conclusion (T.N. Electricity Board v. Bridge Tunnel Constructions, ). The 1st respondent has also challenged the award under this head on the ground that since the Arbitrator had rejected the petitioner's claim of Rs. 1,17,077.78 (claim No. 2) on account of compensation for delayed completion of the work, the Arbitrator had no jurisdiction to award Rs. 3,46,696.62 in respect of extra cost alleged to have been incurred by the petitioner on completion of the work. The said objection does not merit acceptance. It is pertinent to mention that the petitioner had preferred two separate claims in this regard. The first claim pertains to the actual amount spent by the petitioner in completing the work left over by the 1st respondent. The second claim (claim No. 2) relates to the amount of compensation by way of damages for delayed completion of the work under the contract. There is nothing to show that under the contract, the petitioner was entitled to recover any amount from the 1st respondent by way of damages for delayed completion of the work. In these circumstances mere rejection of the petitioner's claim for damages by the Arbitrator cannot defeat the petitioner's claim for recovery of actual cost incurred in completing the work left over by the 1st respondent. That being so, the Arbitrator was justified in rejecting the claim No. 2 preferred by the petitioner. In my opinion, the award on the claim No. 1 does not suffer from any legal infirmity.

Claim No. 3 : The petitioner preferred a claim of Rs. 3,75,264.49 on account of misappropriation of Government stores by the 1st respondent. The Arbitrator allowed Rs. 22,600/- in respect of the said claim. The petitioner as well as the 1st respondent has challenged the award under this head. Petitioner's objection is that the Arbitrator has not properly appreciated the evidence adduced by the petitioner in respect of the said claim and he has committed a patent illegality in reducing the claim arbitrarily. On the contrary, learned Counsel for the 1st respondent contended that the award under this head is based on no evidence. It has to be borne in mind that this Court cannot sit in appeal over the conclusions of the Arbitrator by reappraising the evidence on record. Thus, in my opinion, the award under this head cannot be found fault with.

Counter claim No. 1 : The 1st respondent preferred a claim of Rs. 5,60,000/- on account of change of site from administrative to technical area. The Arbitrator has reduced the said claim to Rs. 1,40,000/-. Petitioner's grievance is that the said award is based on no evidence. The Court cannot investigate into the correctness of the Arbitrator's decision on the merits of the case. Although, the Arbitrator has not assigned any reason for reducing the petitioner's claim, it is not open to the Court to speculate to as what compelled him to arrive at his conclusions. In my opinion, the said objection of the petitioner does not merit acceptance.

Counter claim No. 3 : The 1st respondent had claimed Rs. 41,017/- on account of increase in wages paid to the labourers. The arbitrator has awarded Rs. 35,000/- under this head. There is nothing before me to show that the award under this head suffers from any legal infirmity.

3. Learned Counsel for the 1 st respondent contended that the Arbitrator has committed a patent illegality in rejecting the claims No. 5 and 6. True, the Arbitrator has not assigned any reason for rejecting the said claim but that is no ground for setting aside the award.

4. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the award dated 30th December, 1989 does not suffer from any legal infirmity warranting interference of this Court. Consequently, the objections filed by the parties are rejected. The award dated 30th December, 1989 is made a Rule of the Court. In addition, it is ordered that the petitioner as well as the 1st respondent are entitled to interest on the sum awarded by the Arbitrator @ Rs. 12% per annum from the date of the decree till realisation of the amount. The award dated 30th December, 1989 shall form part of the decree. A decree be drawn up accordingly. No order as to costs.