DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. BEEKAY PESTICIDES PVT. LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE challenge by means of this First Appeal under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), is to the impugned order of the trial Court dated 19.2.1996 whereby the objections of the Appellant under Sections 30 and 33 of the Act were dismissed. The admitted facts are that though the Respondent committed a breach of contract in supply of the Aldrin/Aldrex 30% H.C. as per ISI specification 1307 -1988, however, when the risk and cost tender was issued by the Appellant, the Appellant in fact was able to procure the material at a lower price.

(2.) A mere breach of contract does not entitle a person to damages unless loss has been caused. This is a settled proposition of law and one such judgment of the Supreme Court is the judgment in case of Maula Bux v. UOI, : 1969 (2) SCC 554. Accordingly, the Arbitrator allowed certain claims of the contractor towards refund of the security deposit and which was challenged by means of an objection petition under Sections 30 and 33 of the Act and which has been dismissed by the impugned order. There is therefore no illegality or perversity in the impugned order for this Court to interfere with the impugned order.

(3.) THE scope of hearing objections to an Award is limited. If the scope of hearing objections to an Award is limited, then, the scope of hearing of an appeal against the order dismissing the objections has to be further limited. In view of the fact that the Appellant was caused no loss on account of breach of contract by the contractor, the Award has rightly been passed by directing refund of the security deposit.