SATISH CHAND Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, Satish Chand had entered into a contract with the respondent for execution of the work of construction of bridge at RD 3130 of TD No. 1(Road No.58). An agreement was executed between the parties in this regard. The said contract had an arbitration clause according to which all matters of disputes were required to be adjudicated by an arbitrator to be appointed by Chief Engineer, National Capital Territory of Delhi. The Chief Engineer, National Capital Territory of Delhi had appointed Shri T S Bathija, as the sole arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes between the parties. The arbitrator is stated to have published the award on 15/07/1997. The petitioner has filed the present petition for making the award a rule of the court and for a decree to be passed in terms of the same. In pursuance of the notices having been issued objections have been preferred on behalf of Union of India asserting that work of construction of bridges had been awarded to the petitioner on 22/04/1989. The contract had to be completed by 22/01/1990. It was not completed. The petitioner had abandoned and ultimately the contract was rescinded and the balance work was awarded to another agency. The petitioner never challenged the rescinding of the contract and therefore the said fact had become final. After completion of the work by another agency, notice was issued to the petitioner to deposit Rs.2,65,878/~ as the amount due on account of execution of the work. Since the disputes had-arisen they were referred to the arbitrator. The award has been challenged alleging that the arbitrator has misconducted himself. He had failed to appreciate that the petitioner was to start his work on 28/04/1989 which he did not do so. The working drawings of the work form part of the agreement signed on 27/04/1989. The petitioner after signing the same did not collect the drawings inspite of repeated requests. He was adopting dilatory tactics. The claims of the petitioner was stated to be barred by time. It was further alleged most of the earlie.

(2.) In the reply filed the petitioner contested the claims of the objector. It is pleaded that the award of the arbitrator is in accordance with law. No dilatory tactics had been adopted by the petitioner. It is denied that the claims of the petitioner with respect to claim no. 1,2,3,5,7 and 8 are misconceived.

(3.) So far as grounds on which an award can be set aside the law is not subject-matter of much controversy. The court is not to re-appraise the evidence and when two plausible views or interpretation are possible it cannot be stated that the award of the arbitrator should be set aside. In the normal circumstances the arbitrator has to be taken as a final court with respect to the findings of fact. It becomes unnecessary for this court to refer to all the precedents but with advantage one can mention the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Sikkim Subba Associates vs. State of Sikkim (2001) 5 SCC 629 wherein the Supreme Court while analysing most of the earlier decisions held :-