D D SHARMA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A very interesting question of law has been raised in the objections filed by the objection/petitioner to the award dated 31/5/1995 made and published by Brig.S.C.K.Puni, Chief Engineer, Project Udayak, C/o 99, APO, acting as sole arbitrator Before referring to question of law and dealing with the same, it would be appropriate to scan through the main events surroundinh the controversy. The petitioner had been awarded a contract No.CA No.CE(P) DTK 4/1989-90 for Design and Construction of PMT Bridges (Balance works) at Ishni and Bonday on confluence-Dukey-Dzong Road in Bhutan. However, certain disputes and differences arose which were referred to the arbitration. The petitioner preferred its claims. The respondent department also raised counter-claims. Certain claims, of the petitioner have been awarded partially.Counter-claims of the department have been rejected. In terms of the contract and the reference made by the appointing authority, the learned arbitrator was required to

(2.) while rejecting certain claims of the petitioner, particularly claims No.1,3,5, 6 & 7 the award used the following language: "NIL (not considered as admissible)'. The primary challenge in these objections to the award is that by under the expression not considered as admissible while rejecting these claims, the learned arbitrator has failed in his duty to indicate his findings. Thus the question to be determined is as to whether the aforesaid expression used by the learned arbitrator while rejecting the claim, would amount to indicating his findings. It is this question which is to be decided in this case.

(3.) Normally, the stipulation in the contract or the reference orders to the arbitrators indicate that arbitrator is supposed to give 'reasons in support of his award'. Here the arbitrator was required to 'indicate his findings'. The learned counsel for petitioner argued that findings should he such which indicate the mind of the person giving those findings so as to serve, useful purpose.' In support he relied upon 1 JR 1987 Calcutta (DB) 11.39-52-3-4 entitled Vivekanand Travels Vs. Secretary. STA. That case may not be applicable as it related to the Judicial review of an administrative decision and principles governing administrative decisions would be totally alien to the cases of arbitral adjudication where under the Act of 1940 the arbitrator is not supposed to give an reasons unless specifically asked to do so.