Delhi High Court
M/S Globe Construction Co. vs Union Of India on 11 May, 2009
Author: Shiv Narayan Dhingra
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Reserve: 24.3.2009
Date of Order: 11th May 2009
OMP No. 50/2009
%
M/s Globe Construction Co. ... Petitioner
Through: Mr. G.D.Chopra, Advocate
Versus
Union of India ... Respondent
Through: Mr. Vineet Malhotra, Advocate with
Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate
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. By this petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation
Act, 1996, the petitioner has raised objections against the award dated
21.10.2008 of the learned Arbitrator.
2. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this petition are that
the petitioner had executed civil work for the respondent and thereafter raised a
dispute about non-payment of certain claims. This dispute was referred to the
Arbitrator and learned Arbitrator after considering the pleadings and evidence of
both the parties passed the award. The claim raised by the petitioner and the
amount awarded by the learned Arbitrator are as under:
Claim Amount Claimed Amount Awarded
Claim No.1 - In respect of amount withheld in Rs.24,000/- Rs.24,000/-
final bill
Claim No.2 - Amount wrongly recovered at Rs.2,43,000/- Rs.2,42,979/-
penal rate recovery
Claim No.3 - Lesser rate paid for agreement Rs.39,250/- Rs.39,246/-
items.
Claim No.4 - Recovery on account of Rs.33,040/- Nil
overweight Torsteel
Claim No.5 - Seeking refund of amount Rs.3,47,293 Rs.1,59,528/-
recovered on account of rebates by the claimant
Claim No.6 - For refund of amount recovered Rs.82,500/- Rs.41,493/-
under garb of RIS/MEI/DIS
Claim No.7 - Work done but not paid Rs.3,60,000/- Rs.74,756/-
Claim No.8 - Interest for delay in payment Rs.4,72,052/- Rs.3,19,323/-
Claim No.9 - Balance payment under Clause Rs.6,50,000/- Rs.4,34,116/-
10CC
Claim No.10 - Damage and Loss of Profit Rs.21,00,000/- Rs.2,00,000/-
Claim No.11 - Interest @ 18% w.e.f @10% of
1.12.1995 awarded amount
w.e.f. 1.1.2004
3. Apart from allowing claims of the claimant to the above tune, the
learned Arbitrator also awarded amount of Rs. 30,000/- to the petitioner towards
cost of arbitration. Thus, the total sum awarded to the petitioner was
Rs.12,46,118/-
4. The claimant/petitioner has assailed the award against each of the
claims except claim no.4. The various grounds as stated by the claimant in its
challenge are on the merits of each claim. It is settled law that while considering
challenge to the award under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act,
1996, this Court does not act as a Court of appeal against the order of the
learned Arbitrator. The Arbitrator is the final judge chosen by the parties in
respect of facts and law. The Arbitrator in this case is a retired Additional
Director General of CPWD, who was well versed with the civil engineering works
and he has given reasons for allowing the claims either partly or in full. In
respect of claim no.7 he has given table specifying the measurements of different
items which were claimed by the petitioner not having been paid and he has
taken into account the amount paid and the amount as claimed by the petitioner,
the rates and what was required to be paid further. Against each of the claims,
the learned Arbitrator has considered all material which was placed by the
petitioner and the respondent and given reasons why the particular amount was
being allowed.
5. In view of the award being a speaking and reasoned award and
given by an expert of its field, I consider that the award does not warrant any
interference on the grounds as stated by the petitioner for challenging the award.
The grounds taken by the petitioner for challenging the award do not fall within
the purview of Section 34. I find no reason to entertain this petition. The petition
is hereby dismissed having no force.
May 11, 2009 SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J.
vn
