PREM SALUJA Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On filing the petition under Section 14 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 for making the award dated 25/09/1992 rule of the court, notice was issued to respondent DDA. The award has been challenged by way of objections Filed through I.A.1913/98.

(2.) It is settled proposition that award should not be interferred unless it suffers from the vice of perversity. The court does not sit in appeal and as such, the court should not re-appreciate, re-assess or re-evaluate the evidence or material on which the Arbitrator has based the findings, unless it is found that the Arbitrator has completely ignored the material documents which if taken into consideration could have tilted the award in Favour of the aggrieved party. The sanctity of the award should always be preserved unless the arbitrator has either gone beyond the terms of the agreement or contract or has tied himself to such a legal proposition which when examined is found to be completely unsound. Otherwise, even erroneous view taken by the Arbitrator either on factual matrix or as to the interpretation of the terms of the agreement should not be upset. Let us examine the award on the anvil of above tests.

(3.) Claim no.1 is towards refund of security deposit. The only objection is that the Arbitrator did not. consider that the petitioner had failed to rectify the defects which were pointed out in the completion certificate. Similarly claim no.2 pertains to refund of Rs.10,000/- which wore withheld for no reason.