Satish Chand vs Union Of India
2001 Latest Caselaw 1768 Del

JUDGMENT

V.S. Aggarwal, J.

1. The petitioner, Satish Chand had entered into a contract with the respondent for execution of the work of construction of bridge at RD 3130 of TD No. 1 (Road No. 58). As agreement was executed between the parties in this regard. The said contract had an arbitration clause according to which all matters of disputes were required to be adjudicated by an arbitrator to be appointed by Chief Engineer, National Capital Territory of Delhi. The Chief Engineer, National Capital Territory of Delhi had appointed Shri T S Bathisa, as the sole arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes between the parties. The arbitrator is stated to have published the award on 15th July, 1997. The petitioner has filed the present petition for making the award a rule of the court and for a decree to be passed in terms of the same. In pursuance of the notices having been issued objections have been preferred on behalf of Union of India asserting that work of construction of bridges had been awarded to the petitioner on 22nd April, 1989. the contract had to be completed by 22nd January, 1990. It was not completed. The petitioner had abandoned and ultimately the contract was rescinded and the balance work was awarded to another agency. The petitioner never challenged the rescinding of the contract and therefore the said fact had become final. After completion of the work by another agency, notice was issued to the petition to deposit Rs. 2,65,878/- as the amount due on account of execution of the work. Since the disputes had arisen they were referred to the arbitrator. The award has been challenged alleging that the arbitrator has misconducted himself. He had failed to appreciate that the petitioner was to start his work on 28th April, 1989 which he did not do so. The working drawings of the work form part of the agreement signed on 27th April, 1989. The petitioner after signing the same did not collect the drawings inspite of repeated requests. He was adopting dilatory tactics. The claims of the petitioner was stated to be barred by time. It was further alleged most of the earlier, (sic)

"It is also, by now, well settled that an that the award pertaining to claim No. 1,2,3,5,7 and 8 are misconceived and they are totally without any substance or merit.

2. In the reply filed the petitioner contested the claims of the objector. It is pleaded that the award of the arbitrator is in accordance with law. No dilatory tactics had been adopted by the petitioner. It is denied that the claims of the petitioner with respect to claim No. 1,2,3,5,7 and 8 are misconceived.

3. So far as grounds on which an award can be set aside the law is not subject-matter of much controversy. The court is not to re-appraise the evidence and when two plausible views or interpretation are possible it cannot be stated that the award of the arbitrator should be set aside. In the normal circumstances the arbitrator has to be taken as a final court with respect to the findings of fact. It becomes unnecessary for this court to refer to all the precedents but with advantage one can mention the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Sikkim Subba Associates v. State of Sikkim wherein the Supreme Court while analysing most of the earlier decisions held:-

"It is also, by now, well settled that an arbitrator is not a conciliator and his duty is to decide the disputes submitted to him according to the legal rights of the parties and not according to what he may consider to be fair and reasonable. An arbitrator was held not entitled to ignore the law or misapply it and he cannot also act arbitrarily, irrationally, capriciously or independently of the contract (see Rajasthan State Mines and Minerals Ltd. v Eastern Engg Enterprises). If there are two equally possible or plausible views or interpretations, it was considered to be legitimate for the arbitrator to accept one or the other of the available interpretations. It would be difficult for the courts to either exhaustively define the word "misconduct" or likewise enumerate the line of cases in which alone interference either could or could not be made. Courts of law have a duty and obligation in order to maintain purity of standards and preserve full faith and credit as well as to inspire confidence in alternate dispute redressal method of arbitration, when on the face of the award it is shown to be based upon a proposition of law which is unsound or findings recorded which are absurd or so unreasonable and irrational that no reasonable or right-thinking person or authority could have reasonably come to such a conclusion on the basis of the materials on record or the governing position of law to interfere....."

In other words this court is not to sit as court of appeal and re-appraise the evidence on the record.

4. Award of the arbitrator clearly reveal that the arbitrator while going into the controversies has considered the basis facts. Claim No. 1 was pertaining to the purported delay due to respondent failure in fulfillling their obligations. The arbitrator found that the claim of the petitioner was justified, it was not barred by time and had allowed a specified sum. Similarly claim No. 2 was for Rs. 65,000/- on account of security deposit. Claim No. 3 by the petitioner was with respect to the rise in wages of labour, material in terms of clause 10C of the agreement. The same even had been allowed. Claim No. 5 was on account of construction of additional buddies dewatering to handle additional stone to construct cut off wall. Claim No. 7 was for damages on account of salary of engineers, staff, conveyance etc. and machinery. While claim No. 8 was for loss of profit on unfinished work in view of rescission of contract. All these findings with respect to the referred facts are findings of fact. Brief reasons by the arbitrator have been recorded. It would be difficult to term that the said findings are erroneous or there was no material to come to a conclusion as has been arrived at by the arbitrator.

5. No other argument or plea had been raised.

6. As a result of these reasons recorded above, objections fail and are dismissed. The award is made a rule of the court and decree in terms of the award is passed. The petitioner would be entitled to interest from the date of the decree i.e. today on the principal amount at 12% p.a. till the payment is made.