JAI SINGH Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of objections filed by respondent-Delhi Development Authority (for short "DDA") challenging the Arbitrator's award dated 3rd June, 1994, which is sought to be made as a rule of the court. Facts in brief are that petitioner is a contractor carrying on business under the sole proprietorship concern M/s.J.S.constructions; DDA awarded a contract for construction of 496 MIG houses at Mansarovar Park including internal development thereof to the petitioner; during execution of the contract disputes arose between the parties and as per agreement, Engineer Member DDA vide letter No.EM2 85/91/arbn 11950-54 dated 14th September, 1991 appointed Shri S.S.Kaimal as the sole Arbitrator to decide and make an award in respect of disputes falling within the purview of clause 25 of the contract (hereinafter the "The agreement"); on 3rd June, 1994, the Arbitrator gave his award directing the DDA to pay to the claimant/petitioner Rs.5,07,106/- (Rupees five lacs seven thousand one hundred six only) towards full and final settlement of all his claims along with simple interest @ 12% per annum DDA challenged the award and filed several objections inter alia, on the ground that the Arbitrator ignored various clauses including clause No. 25 of the agreement and, the letters exchanged between the parties during the execution of the work the claimant/petitioner filed an affidavit by way of reply to the objections.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for parties and have been taken through the record.

(3.) The principle on which the Court can interfere with the award passed under the Act are now well settled by several authoritative pronouncements of the Apex Court i.e. (i) when there is a violation of the principles of natural justice; (ii) when there was apparent error on the face of the award; (iii) when the Arbitrator has ignored a clause in the agreement prohibiting dispute of the nature entertained; and (iv) when the award on the face of it is based on proposition of law which is erroneous. Reference in this regard can be made to the recent Supreme Court decision in Shyam Aggarwal v. Union of India. AIR 2002 SC 2659.