Hindustan Prefab Ltd. vs Dosajh And Co. And S.P. Kapil, ...
2004 Latest Caselaw 357 Del

JUDGMENT

Madan B. Lokur, J.

1. The Appellant is aggrieved by judgment and order dated 3rd September 1983 passed by the learned Additional District Judge in Suit No.215/1982.

2. Certain disputes arose between the Appellant and Respondent No.1. These disputes pertained to two separate contracts relating to foundation work of foot over bridge at Patel Marg and Nazafgarh Road. The disputes between the parties were referred for arbitration on 6th February 1980 to Respondent No.2 as the sole Arbitrator. The learned Arbitrator entered upon reference on 5th September 1980 and gave his Award on 29th March 1982. The Award was a non-speaking Award.

3. Respondent No.1 filed a petition under Sections 14 and 17 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (the Act) for making the Award a rule of the Court. The Appellant filed objections under Sections 30 and 33 of the Act but the learned Additional District Judge dismissed them by his order dated 3rd September 1983, which is impugned in the present appeal.

4. When the appeal came up for hearing before a learned Single Judge on 29th October 1984, it was observed that no oral evidence was led before the learned Arbitrator, but a few documents had been filed along with the pleadings. These documents, however, were neither proved nor tendered nor admitted by the parties. I may add that the parties did not deny these documents.

5. The learned Single Judge had some reservations whether it was possible to uphold an Award, which was not based on any evidence, oral or documentary. Accordingly, the learned Single Judge referred the matter to a larger Bench for a decision on this question.

6. A Division Bench thereafter heard the appeal on 22nd April 1991 and was of the view that the only question for consideration was whether a non-speaking Award can be set aside because it is not based on any evidence, oral or documentary. By an order of the same date, the Division Bench has per the Evidence Act so long as there is some material before him which can constitute evidence that can be taken into account by the learned Arbitrator, it must be held that there is no merit in the appeal. Consequently, I find no error in the view taken by the learned Additional District Judge to the same effect. No other point was urged before me.

7. The appeal is dismissed, but there will be no order as to costs.