R S BUILDERS Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In relation to a work order for construction of Community Hall in Pockets K & L of Sarita Vihar an agreement was entered into between the petitioner and the respondent which also contained an arbitration clause being clause 25. While executing the aforesaid contract disputes arose between the parties and, therefore, the said disputes were referred for adjudication through the process of arbitration in terms of clause 25 of the arbitration agreement between the parties. The Sole Arbitrator appointed entered into the reference and after receiving evidence and hearing the parties made and published his award on 26. 3.1993.

(2.) When the aforesaid award was filed in this Court, the respondent authority filed an objection under Section 30 & 33 of the Arbitration Act for setting aside the award whereas the petitioner sought for making the said award a Rule of the Court. On the aforesaid objection and the plea of making the award a Rule of the Court I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. I have also perused the connected records to which my attention was drawn during the course of hearing.

(3.) In the decision of the Supreme Court in Indu Engineering & Textiles Ltd. Vs. Delhi Development Authority, reported in (2001) 5 SCC 691 the scope for interference by the Court with an award passed by the arbitrator was set out holding that the same is very limited. It was said that some of the well-recognised grounds on which interference is permissible are that (i) violation of the principles of natural justice in passing the award (2) error apparent on the face of the award (3) the Arbitrator has ignored or deliberately violated a clause in the agreement prohibiting dispute of the nature entertained (4) the award on the face of it is based on a proposition of law which is erroneous, etc. The present award which is rendered by the Sole Arbitrator is, there fore to be examined in the light of the aforesaid principles of law laid down by the Supreme Court while considering the objections filed by the respondent authority herein.