C LYALL Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order will dispose of the objections filed against the award dated 9th February 1987 by the Delhi Development Authority.

(2.) BY an agreement No,14/CD.IX/70-71 the work of construction of a 23 storeyed office building of the Delhi Development Authority was entrusted to M/s C. Lyall & Co., petitioner herein. The petitioner had certain claims against the respondent in relation to the execution of the said work. The agreement between the parties contained an arbitration clause being clause No.25 under which all questions and disputes in relation to the said agreement were liable to be referred to the sole arbitration of the person appointed by the Vice Chairman, Delhi Development Authority. Accordingly Shri G.Subramanyam, Superintending Engineer (Arbitration) was initially appointed as a sole arbitrator. Shri Subramanyam died on 19th August 1984. Therefore, vide letter dated 22nd January 1985, (he Vice Chairman of the respondent appointed Shri 0.P. Mittal as the sole arbitrator. In pursuance of the said appointment Shri O.P. Mittal entered upon the reference and made his award dated 9th February 1987. The sole arbitrator filed the award and the proceedings in this court. Thereupon notice of filing of the award was issued to the parties. In response to the notice only the respondent, i.e. the Delhi Development Authority filed objections under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act challenging the award on various grounds mentioned in the objection petition. The following issues were framed on 6-1-1981:-

(3.) RELIANCE has also been placed by the objec ptor's learned counsel on M/s Continental Const. Co. V/s State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1988 S.C.I 166. This case is peculiar as per its own facts. While making reference to arbitration certain specific issues had been framed and referred to arbitration. On such issues the decision of the arbitrator was treated as final. However, regarding certain other issues the State had taken objection while opposing the application under section 20 of the Arbitration Act. This was regarding the claim of the contractor to extra cost for material and labour in terms of the contract. The Court while allowing the petition u/s 20 of the Arbitration Act ordered that this matter be also agitated before the arbitrator. The District Judge found that this question was a general question and not a specific legal question and the decision of the arbitrator was not final on it. The arbitrator allowed the claim without considering the objection of the State. This was held to be a misconduct on the part of the arbitrator. The Supreme Court approved the decision of the District Judge and held that in view of the specific clause in the contract, the contractor was not entitled to the said claim. It was held "if no specific question of law is referred, the decision of the arbitrator on that question is not final, however, much it may be within his jurisdiction and indeed essential for him to decide the question incidentally".