M/S. R.S. Gupta vs Executive Engineer, Dda & Anr.
2000 Latest Caselaw 495 Del

ORDER

Vikramajit Sen, J.

1. These Objections have been filed on behalf of Delhi Development Authority against the Award dated 5.8.1994. It is yet another instance of the DDA filing Objections against Awards in a mechanical manner. The first ground is that the Arbitrator was to give a valid reasoned award. Having perused the impugned Award I find that the Arbitrator has given reasons and in such minute details as is uncommon in Arbitrations. There is, therefore, no justification for this Objection being raised at all. It shows a total non-application of mind. As regards the other claims, the perspicuous decision of his Lordship B.N. Kirpal, J. in Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Vs. R.J. Shah & Company 1999(2) Arb. LR 316 is a complete answer.

2. The challenge in this Objections is to the Award in Claims 1, 2, 3, 7, 10 and 11. The following Table will illustrate the details:

      S.   Amount         Claimed Award  Towards
     No.
     1.   Rs.2855/-      Rs.2445/-      0.5% rebate
     2.   Rs.35,000/-    Rs.560/-       Work done but not paid.
     3.   Rs.12,578/-    Rs.11880/-     Escalation in rate.
     7.   Rs.40,000/-    Rs.7120/-      Prolongation of 
                                        contract.
     10.  Interest @ 18% 12% P.A.       Interest.
     11.  Rs.11,000/-    Rs.5000/-      Costs.

 

3. If the Objections are to be sustained and the Award is to be set aside in respect of Claims 1, 2, 3 and 7, the Court would necessarily have to go into the facts of the disputes which were before the Arbitrator. No authority need be cited for the proposition that the Court does not sit in appeal over the Award. The Arbitrator is the master of the facts. Even errors committed in his findings of fact are not to be lightly traversed or reversed by the Court. In respect of these Claims, I have perused the reasons on which the Award is found and find that they are lucid. No interference is called for by the Court.

4. In respect of Claim No. 10 there is a challenge to the Arbitrator having granted interest. This is how the Supreme court deal with a similar objection raised in the Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board's case (supra) as under:

"It was then submitted by Sh. Maninder Singh that the arbitrators had awarded a sum of Rs.3,99,800 as interest with effect from 22nd December, 1976 till the date of payment as per the award. This interest, he submitted could not be awarded. In view of th decision of this Court in Secretary, Irrigation Department, Government of Orissa and others Vs. G.C. Roy, , and State of Orissa Vs. B.N. Agarwalla, , we do not see any merit in this contention.

5. In this very case the Supreme Court had held that if the Arbitrator has construed the terms of the contract, then the availability of another view would not justify the Court in construing the contract differently. There is no basis in arriving at the conclusion that the Arbitrator had ignored the contract and, therefore, travelled beyond it.

6. In respect of Claim No. 11 I fail to appreciate how there is a challenge to the award of costs. This is solely in the discretion of the Arbitrator. The reasons which have persuaded me not to interfere in the Award in respect of Claim No.10 also apply in this case.

The Objections, are therefore, dismissed with costs of Rs.1100/-.

S.No. 1986/94

7. This is a petition under Section 14(2), 17 and 29 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. The Objections filed against the impugned Award dated 5.8.1994 passed by Sh.N. Ramamurthy, Sole Arbitrator, have already been dismissed. I have perused its contents and I see no reason to remit the Award or set it aside. The Award is, therefore, made Rule of the Court.

8. Decree Sheet be drawn up accordingly.