ENKAY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Through IA No. 3310/98 objections have been filed by the respondent against making the award dated 23/3/1997 Rule of the Court.

(2.) Broad principles governing the acceptance, rejection, remittance of the award have been laid down by the Supreme Court in some of the following cases

(3.) In Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Vs. R.J. Shah & Company 1999(2) Arb.L.R. 316(SC) where the dispute before the Arbitrators clearly related to the interpretation of the terms of the contract it was held to be not a ground for setting aside the award or remitting the same. It was observed that when the Arbitrator is required to construe a contract then merely because another view be possible the Court would not be justified in construing the contract in a different manner and then to set aside the award by observing that the arbitrator has exceeded the jurisdiction in making the award. To determine whether the arbitrator has acted in excess of jurisdiction or not the Supreme Court has laid the criteria that what has to be seen is whether the claimant could raise a particular dispute or claim before an arbitrator and if the answer is in the affirmative then it is clear that the arbitrator would have the jurisdiction to deal with such a claim and on the other hand if the arbitration clause or a specific term in the contract or the law does not permit or give the arbitrator the power to decide or to adjudicate on a dispute raised by the claimant or there is a specific bar to the raising of a particular dispute or claim then any decision given by the arbitrator in respect thereof would clearly be in excess of jurisdiction.