RAWLA CONSTRUCTION CO Vs. MILITARY ENGINEERS SERVICES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Through this suit, the award dated 16/10/1996 is sought to be made rule of the Court. Respondent has challenged its validity by way of filing objections. Relevant facts lie in narrow compass.

(2.) The respondent entered into an agreement with the petitioner for construction of storage accommodation at Chandipur, a District of Orissa. The contract was made on 20/09/1985 for Rs.37,78,909.91. As per terms of the contract the work was to be completed within ten months but the petitioner sought extension from time to time and completed the work on 31/08/1989. However the petitioner did not prepare the final-bill within the prescribed period of three months and as such the respondent prepared the same which was signed by the petitioner on 5/03/1990 i.e. after a lapse of six months from the time of completion of the work. After assigning the final bill the petitioner sent a leatter dated 1/06/1990 to the respondent claiming the mount towards sales tax paid to the Government of Orissa in connection with the construction work executed. However the sales tax deducted by the respondent was repaid to the petitioner. The petitioner then made a request to the respondent for appointment of an Arbitrator on 28/01/1991 as to the loss suffered by him on account of escalation, colouring of building No.41 & 42, earthing at the site and for providing an eye wash fountain. However the respondent did not accede to the request for appointment of Arbitrator. The petitioner approached the Court. Pursuant to the directions of the Court the Arbitrator was appointed to adjudicate upon the disputes raised by the petitioner.

(3.) The award in question is a non-speaking award. It is contended by the petitioner that the Court cannot sit in Appeal to speculate the mental process of Arbitrator where no reasons are given in the award. The only duty cast upon the Court is to see whether the Arbitrator has acted outside his jurisdiction or not. In support of the above view the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Vaish Brothers & Co. Vs. Union of India & Another 1998 VI AD (Delhi) 152 wherein this Court took the view that in a non-speaking award, it is not open to the Court to speculate where no reasons are given by the Arbitrator as to what impelled him to arrive at his conclusions. As the Arbitrator is the final arbiter of the disputes between the parties the award is not liable to be challenged on the ground that the arbitrator has reached a wrong conclusion or has failed to appreciate the facts.