BHARGAVA AND ASSOCIATES PVT LTD Vs. RITES LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the petitioner company comprising of architects doing consultancy work challenge the Award of the sole Arbitrator dated 8.12.2009. By the Award, the Arbitrator has dismissed all the claims of the petitioner/consultant on the ground that it was guilty of delay in performance of its obligations under the contract. The Arbitrator however, benevolently, has given a payment of 10% with respect to whatever work was done by the petitioner under the contract. The Arbitrator has upheld the findings of cancellation of the contract after issuing show cause notices by the respondent.

(2.) The scope for hearing a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is now well settled. This court does not sit as an appellate court in the sense that when two views are possible, this court does not interfere with the view as taken by the Arbitrator, if the view of the Arbitrator is one plausible view. Before any adjudicating authority, including an Arbitrator, there are always two versions which are put up by the two contesting parties. The Arbitrator is indeed entitled to adopt and prefer one particular stand/version as compared to another stand/version in the case. In doing so, the Arbitrator commits no illegality. Before this court interferes with the Award under Section 34 it has to be clearly established that the Award is illegal or violative of the contractual provisions or the findings are so perverse that it shocks the judicial conscience. Finding of fact is in the domain of the Arbitrator and this court ordinarily does not interfere with the finding of fact as arrived at by the Arbitrator.

(3.) The facts of the case are that the petitioner was awarded the work on 24.9.2004 of providing sub-consultancy services in connection with the construction of rail terminal at Anand Vihar, Delhi. Rites/respondent was acting for and on behalf of the Northern Railways in this case. The stand of the respondent was that since the petitioner was unnecessarily delaying the work, the respondent issued show causes notices, and thereafter terminated the contract of the petitioner. The petitioner was aggrieved by this action of the respondent in terminating the contract and therefore filed claims in arbitration which have been decided by the impugned Award.