Pt. Munshi Ram & Associates Pvt. ... vs Delhi Development Authority
2001 Latest Caselaw 1696 Del

JUDGMENT

J.D. Kapoor, J.

1. This is a suit for making award dated 17.2.1993 rule of the court. The awarded amount is Rs. 20,000/- with interest.

2. The respondent has filed objections to the award under Sections 30 & 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. The main objection is that the finding of the learned Arbitrator is erroneous. The stand taken by the respondent is that the offer was with regard to rebates to be offered monthly as well as in the final bill and the acceptance was also in terms of the offer and that there was no material change in the offer and the acceptance.

3. Thus, according to the respondent, the learned Arbitrator has committed error by holding that no agreement had come into force between the parties within the meaning of Section 7 of the Indian Contract Act. Which is as follows:-

7. Arbitration agreement:- (1) in this Part, "arbitration agreement" means an agreement by the parties to submit to arbitration all or certain dispute which have arisen or which may arisen between them in respect of a defined legal relationship, whether contractual or not.

(2). An arbitration agreement may be in the form of an arbitration clause in a contract or in the form of a separate agreement.

(3). An agreement shall be in writing.

(4). An arbitration agreement is in writing if it is contained in-

(a) a document signed by the parties;

(b) an exchange of letters, telex, telegrams or other means of telecommunication which provide a record of the agreement; or

(c) an exchange of statements of claim and defense in which the existence of the agreement is alleged by one party and not denied by the other.

(5) The reference in a contract to a document containing an arbitration clause constitutes an arbitration agreement if the contract is in writing and the reference is such as to make that arbitration clause part of the contract."

4. As is apparent from the tenor of the objection of the respondent, the view taken by Arbitrator on the proposition of law is erroneous.

5. It is a settled law that the court does not sit in appeal nor does it re-evaluate or re-assess the evidence nor does it to interfer with the finding of the Arbitrator with regard to interpretation of the contract of terms thereof even if the interpretation is erroneous. Unless and until the non-application of mind or misconduct legal or otherwise or perversity is writ large, the award should not be interfered with.

6. The reasons given by the Arbitrator in rejecting the plea of the respondents are that "since the rebates offered by the claimants were conditional rebates which implied that the respondents were entitled for the rebates only after fulfillling their obligation for which the time in any case would have not arisen before the completion of the work in respect of the payment of final bill and six months after the date of completion in respect of release of security deposit, thus the recovery of said rebates from running bills would have caused losses to the claimants."

7. The very fact that respondent awarded work to the petitioner in spite of its having lodged protest in respect of variance of the terms in the offer and acceptance and acceptance letter, shows that respondent were not justified in forfeiting the earnest money of the claimants. The interpretation and the reasons given by the Arbitrator are of no such nature which are either possible or plausible so far as the finding of fact is concerned.

8. I do not find any merit in the objection. Same is dismissed. Award dated 17.2.1993 is made rule of the court. Suit is decreed for Rs. 20,000/- with pendentelite and future interest @ 18% till its realisation.