S L BUILDERS Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The objections preferred through IA 12731/95 by the respondents challenging the award dated 21/03/1995 of the Arbitrator are mainly two-fold. The first objection is with regard to the findings of facts given by the Arbitrator which according to the respondent are against the evidence and material on the record as the Arbitrator has on the one hand ignored the documents of the respondent and on the other has relied upon those of the petitioner/claimant.The second objection is that the Arbitrator has gone beyond his jurisdiction by ignoring the relevant provisions of the agreement inasmuch as the statutory deductions on account of income-tax, water and electricity have not been allowed by the Arbitrator. Further the Arbitrator has ignored the fact that the time was essence of the contract and in spite of the fact that the delay was on the part of the claimant the Arbitrator has awarded the enhanced compensation on account of the delay on the part of the respondent whereas the respondent had rescinded the contract for the delay on the part of the petitioner/claimant. The award as to 15% increase in rates on account of the work carried out beyond the stipulated date is against Clause 10(c) of the agreement. Objection has also been raised with regard to the pre-suit interest which according to the respondent is not permissible under, the law.

(2.) On the factual matrix the main objection is with regard to the claim No. 1 as the remaining claims are either ancillary to or off-shoot of claim No.1. Claim No.1 was awarded on account of extra works, extra items, short measurements and non-payments or short payments. It is contended that the Arbitrator was precluded from taking comer to comer measurements of window frames whereas he should have taken into account the centre to centre measurements. Further the agreed weight of the steel was 7.11 kgs. per metre but the contractor used 7.85 kgs. per metre which was not in accordance with the standard weight and thereby the claim of the petitioner was inflated. Further the claim was towards providing and fixing the grills whereas the Arbitrator has awarded the welding charges for the fixing of the grills which as per the respondent was included in the fixing.Lastly the Arbitrator fell in error in not taking the statutory deductions as provided in Schedule of quantities at page 99 of the agreement. According to this Schedule 1% water charges, 2% income-tax was to be deducted. Similarly the rebate of 1% on secured advance, 2% rebate on monthly payments and 2% on final bill was to be deducted. The provisions of rebate were not taken into account by the Arbitrator.

(3.) It is settled law that the Court does not sit in appeal nor is it required to go into the mind of the Arbitrator as to the findings of facts or interpretation or construction of the terms of the agreement. Unless and until the award or the interpretation or the judgment is completely perverse, the award need not be interfered with. There is unvarying unanimous current of judicial opinion that the award is not open to challenge either on erroneous conclusion as to the facts and material on the record or the evidence produced by the parties or even erroneous opinion as to the legal proposition where two views are possible or unless and until there are substantial allegations as to the bias or unfairness on the part of the Arbitrator the Award should not be tinkered at all. If the findings of the Arbitrator are adjudged, scrutinized or scanned by way of appeal the very purpose of object of the law of arbitration would stand frustrated and defeated. Rather such an exercise by the Court would be counter-productive and is, therefore, beyond its purview.