Delhi High Court
Creative Source vs Itdc And Anr. on 12 January, 2006
Author: S K Kaul
Bench: S K Kaul
JUDGMENT
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.
IA No 10757/1999
1. The matter was called over once and passed over. On both the occasions none appeared for the petitioner.
2.Adverse orders were deferred till post lunch session when the matter was again called for third time. None has chosen to appear for the petitioner.
3. In view of the aforesaid, the objections could be dismissed for non- prosecution but in order to ensure that no prejudice is caused to the petitioner, I have considered it appropriate to examine the award and the objections filed by the petitioner.
4. The dispute between the parties relate to the work contract for interior works at Hotel Donyi Polo Ashok at Ita Nagar. In view of the dispute, the matter was referred to the Sole arbitrator, Mr.B.K. Mattu appointed by the Chairman and Managing Director of the respondent who has made and published his award dated 30.11.1988.
5. The principal dispute relates to the delay of about 7 months in the completion of the contract. The petitioner claimed amounts towards escalation in prices of raw material and labour and towards extra traveling of labour staff and partner due to delay in completion of the work.
6. In so far as escalation in prices of raw material and staff is concerned, the arbitrator has found that only in case of statutory increase the extra amount would be payable as per terms of contract. The petitioner failed to place any document on record to substantiate such increase. In the absence of any evidence to show that such statutory increase had occurred, no amount has been awarded.
7. The delay in the contract is not disputed and the petitioner has been awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- on account of extra traveling of labour and partner. No detailed reasons have been given for the same but it has to be kept in mind that an arbitrator cannot be compared to a Court. He is not expected to write a judgment as written by a Judge. The thought-process of the arbitrator, however, should be available. Detailed calculations are not to be furnished by the arbitrator. In this behalf, learned counsel for the respondent has referred to the judgment of this Court in ISM Airport Techniques v. Airport Authority of India 125(2005) DLT 100
8. The other claims were also examined by the arbitrator and part claims have been allowed in some of the cases. The claims towards loss of business on account of extra time spent has been rejected on the ground that it was not as per contractual norms and deductions made from the final bill has been upheld on the ground that deductions due to deviations from specifications/drawings can be made.
9. In examining the objections under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, this Court does not sit as an Court of appeal. It is not for this Court to interfere with an award merely on the basis that this Court would come to a different conclusion on the material available before the arbitrator. In the absence of an award being absurd, resonableness is not a matter to be considered by the Court as apparaisment of evidence by an arbitrator is not ordinarily a matter for the Court. In this behalf reference may be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Food Corporation of India v. Joginderpal Mohinderpal and Anr. . The Supreme Court has observed in Sudarsan Trading Co. v. Govt of Kerala , that so long as the view taken by arbitrator is plausible, though perhaps not the only correct view, the award cannot be examined by the Court.
10. A perusal of the grounds set out in the objections show that the petitioner wanted to convert the present proceedings for examination of the award like an appeal against an original decree. This is not permissible. The grounds itself state that the evidence has not been properly appreciated or that the arbitrator ought to have come to a different conclusion than the one arrived at on the basis of the material and facts on record. Such objections cannot be maintained.
11. In view of the aforesaid, the application is dismissed.
CS (OS) No.1935A/1995
1. In view of the objections being dismissed the award dated 30.11.1988 of the sole arbitrator Shri B.K. Mattu made a Rule of the Court. The petitioner shall also be entitled to simple interest from the date of decree till the date of realisation at 9% per annum.
2. Parties are left to bear their own costs.
3. Decree sheet be drawn up accordingly.
