D K JAIN Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) JUDGMENT -

(2.) THIS order will dispose of I.A. No. 7407/84 which contains objections on behalf of the respondent DDA under Sections 32 and 33 of the Arbitration Act against the award dated 16th June, 1984.

(3.) IT will be seen that this claim related to refund of security deposit. There were rival contentions of trie parties regarding performance of the agreement. According to the respondent, the contractor had abandoned the work and therefore had committed breach of the agreement and as such was not entitled to refund of the security deposit. Whereas according to the claimant, the respondent was instrumental in delay in the completion of the work and the claimant had never abandoned the same. The Arbitrator has held that there was no breach of contract on the part of the claimant. However, no reasons at all have been given in support of this finding, even though there was a serious contest between the parties on this point. Just saying that after going through the written arguments of both the parties, the submissions at the time of hearing and the statement of facts and counter statement of facts and then giving the conclusion, cannot be called a reasoned award. If this is a reasoned award, 1 do not not know what would be the difference between a speaking award and a non-speaking award. I feel that breach of contract is a question of fact which required a finding with reference to the material on record. Therefore, I find that the award so far as it related to claim No. II also is not sustainable and is liable to be set aside.