HAR BHAGWAN Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHRI V.R.Vaish, Arbitrator has Filed the award dated 31.1.1989 and proceedings in the arbitration matter between SHRI Harbhagwan vs. D.D.A. and others. The notice of filing of the award was issued to the parties and the objections were filed to the award on 8th May, 1989.

(2.) ON 25th September, 1990 after hearing the parties, the Court framed the issues. In the objection petition, it is mentioned that the arbitrator ignored the material evidence on record and acted contrary to the terms of the agreement and consequently misconducted himself. It is also submitted in the application that under clause 25 of the agreement and also under the terms of reference, the Arbitrator was required to give a reasoned award, but the Arbitrator in the present case, has failed to give a reasoned award and the reasons so appended to the award are no reasons at all and in no way indicate the mental process of the Arbitrator. Therefore, the award is liable to be set aside on this ground alone.

(3.) IT has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the award given by the Arbitrator has to be respected and this court would not be justified in sitting in appeal over the award subnutted by the Arbitrator. Learned counsel has drawn attention to Union of India v. Rampur Distillery & Chemical Co. Ltd A.I.R.1973 S.C.1098. In this case, the Court has laid down that party to a contract asking for security deposit from other party to ensure due performance of the contract is not entitled to forfeit the deposit on the ground of default when no loss is caused to him in consequence of such default. The learned counsel for the Objector distinguished this case on the ground that in this case loss has been caused to the Department because of not executing the contract by the claimant, in accordance with the terms of the contract. Learned counsel for the claimant has invited the attention of the court to the Judgment M/s Hindustan Tea Co. v. M/s K. Sashikant & Co. and another A.I.R.1987 S.C.81. In this judgment, the Supreme Court has laid down that under the law, the Arbitrator has made the final arbiter of the dispute between the parties. The award is not open to challenge on the ground that the Arbitrator has reached a wrong conclusion or has failed to appreciate facts. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that there is no quarrel with the proposition as laid down by the Supreme Court in the said case but in the instant case, the Arbitrator has given the award which is contrary to the settled law of the land and has totally misconducted himself on various counts.