Amar Nath Charanji Lal & Co. vs Telecommunication Consultants ...
2009 Latest Caselaw 1750 Del

*           IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


                                                    Date of Reserve: April 16, 2009
                                                       Date of Order: April 29, 2009

+ OMP 61/1998
%                                                                            29.04.2009
    Amar Nath Charanji Lal & Co.                                      ...Petitioner
    Through : Mr. Arvind Sharma, Advocates

       Versus

       Telecommunication Consultants India Ltd.                     ...Respondent
       Through: Mr. S.D. Kushwaha, Advocates


       JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA

1.     Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2.     To be referred to the reporter or not?

3.     Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?


       JUDGMENT

1. Being aggrieved by the award dated 12th February 1998, the Claimant/

petitioner has preferred this application under Section 34 of the Arbitration &

Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, "the Act") praying that the award be set

aside to the extent it does not allow the claims of the applicant/petitioner and

the petitioner should be declared entitled to payment of all the claims raised

by it before the Arbitrator.

2. Facts in nutshell are that the disputes between the petitioner and the

respondent were referred to the Arbitration for adjudication. The petitioner

had preferred six claims and the respondent had preferred one counter claim.

Out of the six claims preferred by the applicant/ petitioner, the Arbitrator

allowed three claims partly and three claims of the petitioner were considered

unjustified. The Arbitrator directed that both the parties shall share the costs

OMP 61/1998 Amarnath Charanji Lal & Co. v. Telecommunication Consultants India Ltd. Page 1 Of 4 of arbitration proceeding equally. The petitioner had asked interest @ 24%

per annum but the Arbitrator allowed interest @ 18% per annum from 9 th

January 1997 till the date of payment. The petitioner's contention is that the

Arbitrator wrongly allowed unmodified claim No.1. Against Claim No.1, the

petitioner initially wanted a sum of Rs.46,717/- but later on modified its claim

to Rs.83,465/-. The Arbitrator allowed only unmodified claim. It is argued that

the learned Arbitrator unjustly held that there was no justification in

modifying the claim. The Arbitrator ignored the letter dated 3rd November

1997 which justified the reasons for modifying the claims. In this letter the

respondent had admitted the due amount towards the petitioner as

Rs.83,465/-.

3. The learned Arbitrator had disallowed the claim No.2 of the petitioner

for an amount of Rs.9,77,901/- made on the ground that the claimant had to

pay increased wages to the labour during the extended contract period. It is

submitted that since under the contract, the petitioner was bound to pay fare

wages to the labour, the Arbitrator should have allowed this claim. Similarly,

the petitioner argued that the claim No.3 regarding interest on the withheld

amount was also wrongly rejected by the Arbitrator and claim No.4 for losses

due to prolongation of the contract was wrongly rejected by the Arbitrator.

4. It is settled law that while deciding the objections against the award,

this Court does not act as a Court of appeal and the award can be challenged

only on limited grounds as set out in section 34 of the Act. The Arbitrator is

the final judge of the questions of facts as well as of law. Unless and until the

Court finds that the Arbitrator has acted contrary to the public policy or

contract or law of the land, the Court cannot tinker with the award.

OMP 61/1998 Amarnath Charanji Lal & Co. v. Telecommunication Consultants India Ltd. Page 2 Of 4

5. It is admitted by counsel for petitioner that the contract between the

parties was a firm price contract and did not provide for any escalation either

on the ground of increased labour charges or increase in the material

charges. I, therefore, consider that the petitioner cannot make a grievance of

rejecting the claim regarding escalation in costs of labour. The contract

specifically provided that the petitioner was liable to pay the fair wages to the

labour as per the law laid down by the State. Even if the contract had not

provided the same, the petitioner was bound by law of the land and the

petitioner was to pay the fare wages to the labour. This clause in the contract

only reminded the petitioner that while he is undertaking the work he has to

keep in mind that the wages to the labour are to be paid as per the prevalent

law and the rates must be fair. On the basis of this clause, the petitioner

cannot make a claim for escalation, in view of the fact that the contract

specifically provides for non-escalation of costs.

6. The award passed by the Arbitrator is a non-speaking award. The

award simply stated which of the claims of the petitioner were justified and

which were not justified on the basis of the documents and material placed

before the Arbitrator. There was no clause in the agreement that the

Arbitrator was to pass a reasoned award when the award was for an amount

less than Rs.1 lac. It was also not a condition precedent to appointment of the

Arbitrator that he was to pass a reasoned award. Where an award is silent

about the reasons, the Court cannot enter into the area as to what would

have been the reasons for allowing or rejecting the claims. Neither the Court

can set aside an award on the ground of being an unreasoned award.

OMP 61/1998 Amarnath Charanji Lal & Co. v. Telecommunication Consultants India Ltd. Page 3 Of 4

7. I find that the petitioner has failed to make out a case for setting aside

the award under Section 34 of the Act. The application/petition is hereby

dismissed. No orders as to costs.

April 29, 2009                                         SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA J.
rd

OMP 61/1998 Amarnath Charanji Lal & Co. v. Telecommunication Consultants India Ltd. Page 4 Of 4