Delhi Development Authority vs Emkay Construction Company
2006 Latest Caselaw 300 Del

JUDGMENT

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.

IA 1797/2006

Allowed subject to just exceptions.

OMP No 54/2006

1. The petitioner has filed objections under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'said Act') in respect of the award dated 30.06.2005 of Sh. K.S. Chauhan, the sole arbitrator. The respondent was awarded the work for construction of MIG Houses including internal development at Mayur Vihar, Pocket 5, Delhi. Disputes arose between the parties and the matter was referred to the sole arbitrator.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the arbitrator while awarding additional claim No. 6 on account of cost of watch and ward after defect liability period, has fallen into error by awarding the said amount despite noticing the fact that possibly no extra amount was payable to the respondent. A perusal of the discussion as recorded by the arbitrator would show that the arbitrator has assigned reasons why part claim has been allowed taking into consideration prevailing practice. There is no error in such a reasoning especially since Section 28(3) of the said Act itself mandates that an arbitral tribunal shall decide in accordance with terms of contract and shall take into account the usage of the trade applicable to the transaction.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to additional claims No. 2 and 3 relating to idle machinery and idle staff. The arbitrator has awarded only the amount for the essential supervisory staff deployed on the particular work.

4. It may be kept in mind that the arbitral tribunal is the chosen forum of the parties. The arbitrator is made the final arbitor of the disputes between the parties as he is a judge chosen by the parties whose decision is final. It is not the scope of scrutiny by this Court to re-appraise evidence or interfere merely because this court would come to a different conclusion on the same set of facts. This was the position even under the old Act of 1940 and it had been held that so long 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 this behalf, judgment of the apex court in Sudarsan Trading Co. v. Govt of Kerala; be referred to. The scope of enquiry has been made more restrictive under the new Act of 1996 and unless the objections fall strictly within any of the clauses of Section 34 of the said Act, as expounded by the Supreme Court in ONGC v. SAW Pipes Ltd. (2003) 4 Scale 92, this court cannot go into the pleas raised by the objector.

5. I thus find no merit in the objections.

6. Dismissed.