NATIONAL STEEL ROLLING MILLS Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a suit filed by National Steel Rolling Mills, hereinafter described as pet ii loner, under Sections 14, 17 and 29 read with Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. It seeks that the award of Shri G R Hingorani should be filed and decree in terms of the same should be passed.

(2.) In pursuance of the notice that had been issued the Delhi Development Authority has filed the objections to the award of the arbitrator referred to above. It has been alleged that the arbitrator has ignored the material evidence on the record. Under clause 14 of the agreement between the parties and also under the terms of reference the arbitrator was required to record its reasons for awarding or rejecting any of the claims. In the present case the arbitrator has failed to record any reasons for awarding or rejecting the claim. Further objection has been raised that the award of the arbitrator with respect to claim no.1 whereby a sum of Rs.5,06,760.00 was allowed is erroneous. The arbitrator failed to appreciate that as per paragraph 7 of the award it was agreed between the parties by letter dated 17/1/1983. It was made clear and it was agreed between the parties that, if necessary, material shall be got tested from any approved test house at the cost of the petitioner. The arbitrator ignored the provisions of special condition no.4 of the contract which empowers the Delhi Development Authority to get the material tested from any approved test house at the cost of the petitioner. The Delhi Development Authority had got the material tested and had incurred a sum of Rs.10,211.00 on account of testing charges. The arbitrator acted contrary to the terms in rejecting the recovery of Rs.10,211.00. It has further been asserted that he committed a material illegality in awarding refund of Rs.1,00,000.00 lakh as the same was lawfully and validly forfeited because the petitioner had failed to complete the supplies for 4,140 metric tonnes within the stipulated period. The delay was attributed to the petitioner and therefore the action so taken was justified. Furthermore, it is alleged that, the arbitrator failed to appreciate that amount of Rs.3,64,993.00 and Rs.31,556.00 on account of supply of material and cartage was liable to be adjusted against the liquidated damages. In this process the contentions raised was that the arbitrator has gone astray and has come to a wrong finding.

(3.) Needless to state that the objections as such have been contested. It is alleged that the arbitrator has passed a speaking and valid award and the amounts that have been allowed were due to the applicant/petitioner.