M/S Delhi Flour Mills Co. Limited vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi & ...
2001 Latest Caselaw 360 Del

ORDER

J.D. Kapoor, J.

1. The award dated 5th April, 1995 is being sought to be made rule of the Court. Unfortunately both the parties have filed objections to the award. However none of them has challenged the award being without jurisdiction or being beyond the terms of the agreement. The objections are mainly on the findings of facts and on the basis of the material and evidence on the record. As it is settled law and I deem it needless to refer to the catena of authorities in this regard and would refer to a case decided recently by the Hon'ble Supreme Court viz. Arosan Enterprises Limited Vs. Union of India & Another wherein it was held that re-appraisal of evidence by the court is not permissible and as a matter of fact exercise of power by the court to reappraise the evidence is unknown to proceedings under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act. The relevant observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court are as under:-

"Reappr2aisal of evidence by the court is not permissible and as a matter of fact exercise of power by the court to reappraise the evidence is unknown to proceedings under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act. In the event of there being no reasons in the award, question of interference of the court would not arise at all. In the event, however, there are reasons, the interference would still be not available within the jurisdiction of the court unless of course, there exist a total perversity in the award or the judgment is based on a wrong proposition of law. In the event however two views are possible on a question of law as well, the court would not be justified in interfering with the award. The common phraseology "error apparent on the face of the record" does not itself, however, mean and imply closer scrutiny of the merits of documents and materials on record. The court as a matter of fact, cannot substitute its evaluation and come to the conclusion that the arbitrator had acted contrary to the bargain between the parties. If the view of the arbitrator is a possible view the award or the reasoning contained therein cannot be examined."

2. Since none of the parties has pointed out any error apparent on the face of the record and tenor of objections is confined to findings of facts the scanning or revaluation or reassessment of the evidence is neither called for nor warranted nor is permissible. The objections are hereby dismissed and the award is made a rule of the court.

3. As the awarded amount has already been paid, no further orders are required to be passed as the award has been satisfied.

4. The suit & the application stand disposed of.