Delhi High Court
Uoi vs A.R. Khanna & Sons on 1 May, 2012
Author: S.Ravindra Bhat
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
DECIDED ON : 01st May, 2012
+ RFA(OS) 31/2005
UOI ..... Appellant
Through : Mr.J.K.Singh, Advocate.
versus
A.R.KHANNA & SONS ..... Respondents
Through : Mr.Bhupesh Narula with Mr.Yash
Tandon, Advocates.
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG
S.RAVINDRA BHAT, J. (OPEN COURT)
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned
Single Judge in C.S.(OS) No.42-A/1998 which arose out of the
proceedings for making an arbitral award the Rule of the Court. The
claimant/contractor had filed objections to the Award, made by the
Arbitrator on 22.08.1997 in respect of dispute which arose on account of
works awarded to the claimant, on 07.11.1998.
2. Learned Arbitrator i.e.Justice D.R.Khanna (Retd.) considered
all the claims and by the award, directed payment of `6,84,822/-.
3. The Contractor had relied upon various contentions urging
that the Award was in gross error of law and contrary to the record. After
considering and overruling almost all of them, the learned Single Judge
RFA(OS) No.31/2005 Page 1 of 3
admitted one contention i.e. in calculating the final amount, the learned
Single Judge had ignored a sum of `1,25,487/-. He accordingly modified
the Award and directed inclusion of that amount, so as to increase the
final amount payable by the Appellant i.e.Union of India to `8,10,309/-.
4. It is urged on behalf of the Union of India that the learned
Single Judge fell into error by adding a sum of `1,25,487/-. It is urged
that a conjoint reading of the Award; (i.e. particularly paras 22 to 26)
with paras 17 to 22 of the impugned judgment, reveal that the Arbitrator
had in fact taken into consideration the sum of `1,25,487/- (which it was
pointed out was a part of the final bill amount and was reflected to
`1,07,063/- in the Award). It was emphasized that before the Arbitrator,
five statements had been made and that all of these were considered while
awarding the final amount and as a consequence, there was no occasion
for the learned Single Judge to add any further amount much less than the
amount of `1,25,487/-. On the other hand learned counsel for the
Contractor/claimant urged that there is no manifest error in the learned
Single Judge's approach which calls for interference by the Division
Bench in the appeal. It was argued that the learned Single Judge rejected
most of the claims made on behalf of the Contractor and after due
application of mind, directed the addition of `1,25,487/- purely on the
ground that there was obvious error in the method of calculation.
5. This court recalls the role of the Court, in considering the
petitions under Section 30 and 33 of the (now repealed) Arbitration Act
1940 and is of the view that the extent of power is extremely limited. It is
not every error of fact or law which can be revisited by the court; only
those which are apparent on the face of the record or are egregious and
RFA(OS) No.31/2005 Page 2 of 3
obvious, can be taken into consideration and cured. In this case, after a
complete and exhaustive analysis of the record (which included
appreciation of the statements of the claimant) the learned Single Judge
had concluded that the Arbitrator omitted to include the sum of
`1,25,487/- which was reflected in the final bill and statement (as is
evident from para 16 of the judgment). Having regard to the extremely
narrow and limited appellate reviews which is in a sense twice removed
from the power of the court to re-appreciate the findings of the Award we
are unpersuaded that the view or opinion taken by the learned Single
judge is of such a character that calls for an interference. Even a second
opinion, in this regard, is not called for.
6. For the above reasons, we are of the opinion that this appeal
has to fail. It is accordingly dismissed.
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.
S.P.GARG, J.
MAY 01, 2012
sa
