Ocs Friends Co-Operative Group ... vs Nbcc Ltd. And Anr.
2005 Latest Caselaw 1658 Del

JUDGMENT

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.

IA 13278/2000 (Under/section 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940)

1. The respondent has filed objections to the award of the sole arbitrator Sh. W.D. Dandage dated 20.03.2000. The award is a non speaking and it is not disputed that there was no requirement to give a speaking award. In view of the aforesaid position, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 on the last date of hearing had confined his submissions to the aspect that the arbitrator had gone beyond the reference made to him since claim filed by the petitioner was beyond the scope of the what had been referred to in the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act') in respect of which the reference arose. On a perusal of the claim petition filed by the petitioner and the petition under Section 20 of the said Act, it cannot be doubted that the petitioner had made enhanced claims. Nature of the claims was more or less the same but there was substantial increase in the valuation.

2. Learned counsel for the respondent in this behalf referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Orissa Mining Corporation v. R.V. Rawlley; to advance the proposition that the arbitrator could not have gone into the enlarged claim beyond what had been referred to the arbitrator. This proposition is not disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner, but learned counsel submits that in the present case even though the petitioner may have filed enhanced amount of claim, the arbitrator has considered only the claims and counter claims as filed in the petition under Section 20 of the said Act before the Delhi High Court in Suit No 917-A/95. In this behalf learned counsel has referred to the recital portion of the award which reads as under:

After studying carefully the pleadings and written submission filed by the parties, after patiently listening their oral submissions and after applying my mind, I have decided the claims and counter claims filed by the parties in the Delhi High Court in Suit No 917-A/95 through the claimant's petition and the written statement of the respondent respectively and hereby make my award as under:

3. The aforesaid shows that the arbitrator, conscious of his limitation in view of the reference made by the court, has confined the consideration of the claims only to the matters as have been referred to him by the court. The initial claim made by the petitioner was Rs 2.12 crore which was sought to be enhanced before the arbitrator to Rs 3.37 crore. The amount awarded is Rs 29,85,764/-

4. It is not disputed that the petition under Section 20 of the said Act was before the Arbitrator. However learned counsel for the respondent states that even during the course of arguments the petitioner referred to the documents and the claim petition. In this behalf learned counsel seeks to invite the attention of this court to the proceedings before the Arbitrator.

5. In my considered view what is material is the fact that the arbitrator himself has considered only the claims as raised in the section 20 petition. The award is an unreasoned award giving lumpsum amount and in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Supreme Court in State of Orissa v. Lall Brothers; it cannot be said that an unreasoned award for lumpsum payment is bad per se or that the award is liable to be set aside on that ground.

6. The last aspect raised by learned counsel for the respondent is the rate of interest which has been awarded at 18 per cent per annum. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly confines his claim of interest to 12 per cent per annum which is a fair market rate of interest at the relevant period of time.

7. Application is accordingly disposed of.

CS(OS) 574A/2000

1. The award dated dated 20.03.2000 of the sole arbitrator Sh. W.D. Dandage is made rule of the Court with the modification that the petitioner shall be entitled to interest under the award at the rate of 12 per cent per annum instead of 18 per cent per annum till the date of decree. The petitioner shall also be entitled to future interest from date of decree till date of realisation at the rate of 9 per cent per annum. However if the respondent pays the decreetal amount within a period of 60 days from today, the respondent will be exempted from payment of future interest. The petitioner shall be entitled to costs.

Decree sheet be drawn up accordingly.