R S GUPTA Vs. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER DDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These Objections have been filed on behalf of Delhi Development Authorityagainst the Award dated 5.8.1994. It is yet another instance of the DDA filingObjections against Awards in a mechanical manner. The first ground is that theArbitrator was to give a valid reasoned award. Having perused the impugenedAward I find that the Arbitrator has given reasons and in such minute details as isuncommon in Arbitrations. There is, therefore, no justification for this Objection beingraised at all. It shows a total non-application of mind. As regards the other claims, theperspicuous decision of his Lordship B.N. Kirpal, J. in Himachal Pradesh StateElectricity Board Vs. R. J. Shah & Company 1999(2) Arb. LR 316 is a completeanswer.

(2.) The challenge in this Objections is to the Award in Claims 1,2.3.7,10 and 11The following Table will illustrate the details;S.No. Amount Claimed Award Towards1. Rs.2855.00 Rs.2445.00 0.5% rebate2. Rs.35,000.00 Rs.560.00 Work done but not paid.3. Rs.12,578.00 Rs.11880.00 Escalation in rate.7. Rs.40,000.00 Rs.7120.00 Prolongation ofcontract.10. Interest @ 18% 12%P.A. Interest.11. Rs.11,000.00 Rs.5000.00 Costs.

(3.) If the Objections are to be sustained and the Award is to be set aside in respectof Claims 1, 2, 3 and 7, the Court would necessarily have to go into the facts of thedisputes which were before the Arbitrator. No authority need be cited for the propositionthat the Court does not sit in appeal over the Award. The Arbitrator is the master ofthe facts. Even errors committed in his findings of fact are not to be lightly traversed orreversed by the Court. In respect of these Claims, I have perused the reasons onwhich the Award is found and find that they are lucid. No interference is called for bythe Court.