BUMBRAH ELECTRIC CO Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There is no gainsaying the fact that the Arbitrator is an instrument of the agreement and is not over it. If the Arbitrator traverses beyond the terms of the agreement such an award is liable to be set aside. He has to remain within the four corners of the agreement. However, at the same time, it is cardinal principle that the sanctity of the award should always be preserved because the parties choose their own forum reposing their full faith not only in his competence but also in his integrity and impartiality. The parties, are, therefore restrained from picking holes with the findings of the Arbitrator unless bias or perversity is manifest and pronounced.

(2.) At the same time, the court should also refrain from re-appreciating or re-assessing the evidence or material on Which the Arbitrator has based his findings. If this is allowed, it would amount to functioning of court as appellate court which it is not. This is neither the object of Arbitration Act nor the permissible area. The above principles have been culled out mainly in view of the objections of the respondent to the award that the Arbitrator has gone beyond his brief and has transgressed the arena that did not belong to him.

(3.) As many as 12 claims were preferred by the petitioner. Gut of these only three found favour with the Arbitrator and that too partially. Respondent-DDA has challenged even those claims which on the face appear to be based upon evidence and material produced by the parties. The claimant was awarded electrical work of 408 MIG dwelling units at 'A' Dakshini Pitampura. Some disputes arose which were referred to the arbitration of Superintending Engineer (Arbitration)-II. The Arbitrator entered into reference and made the award on 20th March, 1995 which through this petition is being sought to be made rule of the court. The respondent has filed objections to the award.