Delhi High Court
Punjab Construction vs Union Of India (Uoi) on 10 November, 2005
Author: S K Kaul
Bench: S K Kaul
JUDGMENT
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.
Page 2321
IA 9752/1993
1. The respondent awarded a contract to the petitioner for construction of work at Parade Ground and widening of roads around the same vide agreement dated 19/EE/DAD/83-84. The work was completed but since disputes arose between the parties on account of the amount claimed by the petitioner. Sh. S.S. Juneja was appointed as the sole arbitrator in terms of Clause 25 of the agreement between the parties. Sh. Juneja made and published the award on 06.03.1993 and respondent aggrieved by the same filed objective.
2. Learned counsel for the respondent has taken me through the various claims awarded, but, after initial arguments, cannot seriously dispute the fact that it is not the scope of scrutiny of this court to reappraise the evidence before the arbitrator.
Thus to the extent that the claims are based on the appreciation of evidence, the same cannot be re-scrutinized by this court. This would amount to this court sitting as a court of appeal, which is not permissible. It is not for this court to interfereith an award merely on the basis that the court would come to a different conclusion on the material available before the arbitrator. It is only in the eventuality of the award being totally perverse that such interference is called for, and, in this beh
3. In appreciating the award made by reference to the clauses of the contract, all that has to be seen is that something that is not provided for at all in the contract, is not awarded by the arbitrator. Insofar as the interpretation of a contract is concerned, same is a matter for the arbitrator and on which the court cannot substitute its own decision as observed by the apex court in Sudarsan Trading Co. v. Govt of Kerala; AIR 1989 Supreme Court 890. In fact the apex court has observed that so log as the view taken by the arbitrator is plausible, though perhaps not the only correct view, the award cannot be examined by the court. In such a situation the High Court was held to have no jurisdiction to examine different items clause by clause by the phraseology 'error apparent on the face of the record' was thus held not to mean and imply closer scrutiny of merits of the documents and material on record. These judgments have been considered in a recent judgment of this court in CS(OS) 1706A/1989
4. Learned counsel for the respondent seeks to contend that the amount has been awarded towards damages under claim no. 7 even though there was no provision in the contract for the said purpose. This plea cannot be accepted by the reason of the fact that in the absence of any clause, damages can always be awarded Under Section 73 of the Contract Act, 1876. It cannot be said that if the contractor is compelled to do the work beyond the period of Page 2322 contract for the reasons not attributable to the contractor, the contactor is precluded from claiming amounts on account of such prolongation. The arbitrator has thus considered this aspect and has awarded damages and the award does not call for any interference.
5. Learned counsel further submitted that the arbitrator has wrongly awarded the amount claimed by the contractor as claim no. 2 which had been withheld on account of defects. A reading of the award shows that this amount was sought to be claimed for removal of defects, five years after completion of work. Naturally such a contention of the respondent was not accepted by the arbitrator.
6. Section 33 of the said Act to reappreciate the evidence or interfere merely because this court may come to another plausible conclusion different from that of the arbitrator.
7. Insofar as the rate of interest is concerned, that has also been awarded only at the rate of 12 per cent per annum which is a reasonable rate of interest taking into consideration the prevailing rates of interest at the relevant period of time.
8. In view of the aforesaid, I find no merit in the objections.
9. Dismissed.
CS (OS) No. 1178/1993
In view of the disposal of the objections of the respondent, the award dated 06.03.1993 of the sole arbitrator Sh. S.S. Juneja is made rule of the court. Petitioner shall also be entitled to future interest from the date of decree till date of realization at the rate of 9 per cent simple interest. In case the respondent pays the amount within 60 days, respondent will get exemption from payment of future interest.
Petitioner shall also be entitled to costs of the proceedings.
Decree sheet be drawn up accordingly.
