SURESH KUMAR JAIN Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are objections by respondent No.1-the Delhi Development Authority (for short, the DDA) under sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act against the award made and published by Shri A.L. Garg, the sole arbitrator, on 18/09/1992. A contract for construction of 276 Janta Flats at Pocket F, Pitampura was awarded to the petitioner by the DDA. However, during the course of execution of the contract, certain disputes arose between the parties. On the petitioner invoking the arbitration clause, contained in the agreement, the Engineer Member, DDA, the persona designata, appointed the above named arbitrator as the sole arbitrator to determine the disputes/claims raised by the petitioner/contractor. After hearing the parties, the learned arbitrator made and published the award on 18/09/1992. On contractor's filing petition under section 14 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, the arbitrator filed the award and notice of filing of award was issued to the parties, pursuant whereto the DDA has filed the objections (IA No.344/94).

(2.) On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:

(3.) It is well settled by now that the jurisdiction of the court in these proceedings is very limited and an award can be set aside only if it is apparent from the face of the award that there is no evidence to support the conclusion or if the award is based on any legal proposition, which is erroneous. In these proceedings, the court does not sit in appeal over the award and review the reasons given by the arbitrator. Having carefully perused the arbitrator's record and the award in the light of the above broad principles, I am of the view that the objections raised by the DDA are without any substance. The learned arbitrator has given cogent reasons while awarding amounts against each of the claims. The major part of the award is with regard to either the short measurements or difference in rates of substituted items. Clause 12 of the agreement provides the procedure for fixation of rates for extra/substituted items. As observed by the arbitrator, rates for similar items were not available in the agreement and, therefore, the rates had to be determined in terms of clause 12(iii). It was a matter of details and merits, to be decided by the arbitrator, which he has done. It cannot be said that the rates applied by the arbitrator are without any basis. I do not find either any error on the face of the award or perversity therein, warranting interference by this court insofar the amounts awarded against various claims are concerned.