Chander Kant And Co. vs Delhi Development Authority
2009 Latest Caselaw 4610 Del

*            IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+                        C.S. (OS) No. 1380-A/1997
                                           11th November, 2009.


CHANDER KANT AND CO.                               ..Petitioner
                Through:            Mr. R. Rajappan, Advocate.
        VERSUS


DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY                          ...Respondent
                         Through:   Ms. Anusuya Salwa, Advocate
                                    with Ms. Neha Mittal, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA

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

     2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?

     3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
 %
JUDGMENT (ORAL)

I.A. No.10234/1997 in CS(OS) No.1380A/1997

1. These are objections filed by the respondent/DDA under

Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 against the Award

dated 31.1.1995 made and published by the sole Arbitrator.

C.S(OS)No.1380A/1997 Page 1

2. The principal contention of the objector is with respect to

the claims which are allowed, namely, claim Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 6 to 9.

The Award is a non-speaking Award inasmuch as the Arbitrator has

either given his conclusion or the reasons which are given are not

intelligible reasons that can be said to have nexus with the claims

which have been awarded. I do not propose to burden this

judgment with detailed findings on each of the claims because a

reference to the Award is sufficient to show that the reasons which are

given are not such reasons which can be called as reasons in law. Ms.

Anusuya Salwan, counsel for the objector has relied upon a recent

Division Bench judgment of this Court reported as Delhi Development

Authority Vs. Sunder Lal Khatri and Sons 157(2009)DLT 555 wherein

all earlier judgments have been referred to including the Division

Bench judgment of this court of College of Vocational Studies Vs. S.S.

Jaitley, AIR 1987 Delhi 134. After analyzing all the judgments, the

Division Bench has approved the ratio as given in the judgment of the

Calcutta High Court reported as Union of India Vs. Royal

Construction (2002)1 CHN 13 and which ratio is as under:

C.S(OS)No.1380A/1997 Page 2 " 20. The law as it appears from the above authorities and especially the two last ones referred to above is as follows- (1) To make a reasoned award the arbitrator has to make his mind known on the basis which he has acted.

(2) Statement of reasons is not the same thing as the giving of a detailed judgment.

(3) Reasons are short and intelligible indications of the Arbitrator's mind, no more.

(4) The reasons must have such connection with the conclusions reached by the Arbitrator as to show that the arbitrator has not acted irrelevantly, unreasonably or capriciously.

(5) The reasons should deal with the substantial points raised in the reference"

3. Accordingly, in accordance with the ratio of the aforesaid

judgments, it is clear that the reasons which are given must be

intelligible reasons and must be reasons in law. Any and every

observation cannot be taken as reasons required in law. The reasons

must have nexus with the finding so arrived at. No doubt, the reasons

may not be all that elaborate, however, the reasons should deal with

substantial points which have been raised because a speaking Award

would mean that the contentions of the parties are noted and

answered by means of the Award vide S.N. Mukherjee Vs. Union of

India AIR 1990 SC 1984.

C.S(OS)No.1380A/1997 Page 3

4. Accordingly, I remit this matter back to the Arbitrator

under Section 16 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 for passing a fresh Award

which should be a reasoned and speaking Award. I may note that the

Arbitrator in this case has awarded interest @ 15% per annum. I may

refer to the recent Supreme Court judgments, namely, Rajendra

Construction Co. Vs. Maharashtra Housing & Area Development

Authority & ors.2005 (6) 678, McDermott International Inc. Vs. Burn

Standard Co. Ltd.& ors 2006 (11) SCC 181, Rajasthan State Road

Transport Corpn. Vs. Indag Rubber Ltd. (2006) 7 SCC 700 and

Krishna Bhagya Jala Nigam Ltd. Vs. G.Harischandra, 2007 (2) SCC

720 wherein it has been held that on account of the changed

economic scenario and the falling rates of interest, it is necessary for

the adjudicating authorities to take into account this fact and

accordingly award suitable reduction in the rates of interest. The

Arbitrator should keep in mind the ratio of the aforesaid judgments

while awarding the interest.

5. Accordingly, with the above observations, the objection

petition is disposed of. The arbitration record which has been filed in

this Court be sent back to the Arbitrator by a special messenger.

C.S(OS)No.1380A/1997 Page 4

6. At this stage, I am informed that the Arbitrator who dealt

with this matter is no more. Accordingly, a fresh Arbitrator has to be

appointed. Accordingly, with the consent of the parties I appoint Sh.

J.K.Garg S.E. Arbitration, resident of Block-B2 DDA Office Complex,

Janakpuri, Delhi, Mobile No.9810880789, Phone No.25548223 who

is a Superintending Engineer of the objectior and who is one of the

persons as per the agreed arbitration clause who is entitled to decide

the disputes and differences which have arisen between the parties

under the present contract. Accordingly, record of the arbitration be

sent by a special messenger to Sh. J.K. Garg, Arbitrator in the present

case.

7. With these observations, the objection petition is disposed

of.

8. Dasti.

                                            VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J
November 11, 2009
Ne




C.S(OS)No.1380A/1997                                              Page 5