Beg Raj vs Delhi Development Authority
1998 Latest Caselaw 935 Del

JUDGMENT

Dr. M.K. Sharma, J.

1. The petitioner entered into a contract with the respondent No.1 for execution of the work of setting up of brick kiln No.1 at Rohini and the said contract was executed between the parties. The said contract contained an arbitration clause being clause No.25, according to Which all matters of disputes were required to be adjudicated upon by an arbitrator to be appointed by the Engineer Member of the respondent No.1. While executing the said contract certain disputes arose and accordingly the same were referred to the Engineer Member who, by his order dated 15th May, 1985 appointed the respondent No.2 as an arbitrator. The arbitrator entered upon the reference on 24.5.1985 and received evidence on record. Upon perusal of the statement, counter-statement and other documents, the arbitrator made and published his award on 23rd February, 1987. The aforesaid award passed by the arbitrator was filed in this court as against which objection under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act was filed by respondent No.1 which was registered as I.A.No. 1619/88.

2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1/objector as also the counsel appearing for the petitioner. Although the objection has been submitted in respect of the entire award, counsel appearing for respondent No.1 mainly assailed the findings of the arbitrator in respect of claim No. 1. In the light of the award passed by the arbitrator and the objection filed, I propose to dispose of the objection claim wise as follows:-

CLAIM NO. 1:

3. Claim No.1 relates to a claim for a sum of Rs.2,91,915/- towards the short supply of bricks. On consideration of the evidence on, record, the arbitrator found that the aforesaid claim is not justified. The arbitrator in his award has given four specific reasons for coming to the aforesaid conclusion as to why the aforesaid claim was not justified. Counsel appearing for respondent No.1 vehemently argued that the aforesaid reasons are no reasons at all and that, in fact, they are contrary to the actual and contractual position of the case. Counsel further submitted that the findings of the arbitrator are perverse and they are contrary to the terms' of the agreement. Counsel referred to the provisions of clause 17 of the contract modified by letter dated 29th April, 1981. My attention was also drawn to the provisions of Clause 16 of the contract which provides that the payment for the supply of bricks to the permit holder would be only against the supply to be made by the kiln owner and the payments were to be made only at the time of supply and not in advance.

4. In view of the aforesaid objection taken by the respondent No.1 against the reasons recorded by the arbitrator while giving his award as against claim No.1, I scrutinised the reasons. I find that the permits for the bricks were issued by the respondent No.1 and the permit holders were required to contact the petitioner at the brick kiln and make payment and thereafter take delivery of the bricks. It is found on record that though the objector/respondent No.1 issued permits to the contractor only for about 1/3rd of the stipulated quantity but even those permit holders did not approach the petitioner to collect the bricks. The arbitrator considered all the aforesaid factors while giving his award. Although the permit holders were definitely expected to make the payment first and only thereafter the quantity of bricks, for which the payment is given, were to be released, the same could be done only when the permit holders approach the brick kiln owners. Further, the record discloses that the permit holders deposited the amount with the petitioner only for part quantity of bricks and thus look only that quantity from the petitioner. Whatever permits were issued by the respondent No.1 for supply of bricks, the same were supplied and there was no grievance at any stage from the permit holders that in spite of their approach to the petitioner, bricks were not given by the petitioner. The arbitrator has come to the aforesaid conclusion after taking note of and appreciation of the evidence on record and on interpretation of the clauses of the contract.

5. This court while exercising powers under Section 30 and 33 of the Act and making the award a rule of the court should not and docs not have the power to re-appreciate the evidence on record like an appellate court and thereafter come to a contrary findings then what is held by the arbitrator. If on a reasonable interpretation of clauses of the contract and on the evidence on record a view has been taken on the evidence on record, the same unless is pulp ably erroneous on the face of the record or in any manner perverse, the same is not to be lightly interfered with by the court. I am not pursu aded by the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1/objector to hold that the aforesaid findings of the arbitrator is in any manner perverse or could be said to be erroneous on the face of the record.

Thus, I uphold the award passed by the arbitrator in respect of the aforesaid findings.

CLAIM NO.2:

6. Counsel appearing for respondent No l/ objector also raised faint objection to the findings of the arbitrator recorded in respect of claim No.2. Since the objection with regard to claim No.1 is rejected, the finding recorded against Claim No.2 which is regarding payment of interest on the amount to be awarded on claim No.1 does not call for any interference.

7. Objections as raised in respect of the findings of the arbitrator so far additional claim No.1. and additional claim No.2 are concerned, are also without merit. For coming to the aforesaid conclusion also, the reasons for disallowing the claims have been recorded by the arbitrator and I find no error on the face of the record, in respect of the said findings. Accordingly, I uphold the award passed by the arbitrator in respect of the same. In the result, the award passed by the arbitrator stands upheld. The award is made the rule of the court. The suit and the objections stand disposed of in the light of the aforesaid observations.