Delhi High Court
Sh. Prakash Sharma vs Delhi Dev. Authoirty & Ors. on 22 March, 2001
Equivalent citations: 2001 IVAD Delhi 109, 91 (2001) DLT 393, 2001 (59) DRJ 105, 2001 (3) RAJ 314
Author: J Kapoor
Bench: J Kapoor
ORDER
J.D. Kapoor, J.
1. Both the parties have filed objections against the award dated 29.6.89 which registered as a suit No.1811/89 for making it a rule of the court. However, the petitioner/claimant has withdrawn the objection as to claim No.2. However, the objections filed by the respondent are with regard to claims 1,2,4 and 5 and counter claims 1 and 2. As regards counter claim No.1 the claimant has no objection if the same is allowed as there is no dispute as to claim No.1 which was with regard to penalty imposed under clause 2 of the contract.
2. As regards counter claim No.2 the respondent had sought compensation under clause 14 on account of defective work done by the petitioner.Since this counter claim is purely based upon facts, the award in this regard can not be interfered with as it is beyond the purview of the court to re-assess or re-appraise the evidence or material upon which the finding of the arbitrator is based.
3. The tenor of the objections in respect of remaining claims shows that the findings of facts have been challenged or assailed. Nowhere it has been pointed out that the arbitrator had gone beyond the terms of the agreement or had travelled beyond his jurisdiction. What has been disputed is the evaluation of the documents and material placed before him.
4. Recently the supreme Court in Arson Enterprises Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Anr. has held that findings of the Arbitrator as to evidence and material on record should not be interfered with.
"Reappraisial of evidence by the Court is not permissable 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 exists 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.
5. In another case Himanchal Pradesh State Electricity Board vs. R.J.Shah & Company 1999(2) Arb. LR 316 (SC) the Supreme Court has gone to the extent by holding that even erroneous interpretation of the terms for setting aside the award or estimating the same can not be questioned. It has observed that when the arbitrator is required to construe a contract then merely because another view may possible the court would not be justified in construing the contract in a different manner and then to set aside the award by observing that the arbitrator has exceeded the jurisdiction in making the award.
6. In order to determine whether the arbitrator has acted in excess of jurisdiction or not the Supreme Court further held that what has to be seen is whether the claimant could raise a particular dispute or claim before an arbitrator and if the answer is in the affirmative then it is clear that the arbitrator has jurisdiction to deal with such a claim and on the other hand if the arbitration clause or a specific term in the contract or the law does not permit or give the arbitrator the power to decide or to adjudicate on a dispute raised by the claimant or there is a specific bar to the raising of a particular dispute or claim then any decision given by the arbitrator in respect thereof would clearly be in excess of jurisdiction.
7. On examining the objections on the anvil of the aforesaid principles laid down by the Supreme Court I do not find any merit and dismiss the same.
8. As a result, award in respect of counter claim No.1 is set aside and award in respect of claims 1,2, 4 and 5 is made rule of the court. The suit is decreed accordingly with pedentelite and future interest at the rate of 15 per cent till the realisation.
