MOHAN CONSTRUCTION CO. Vs. DDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The subject-matter of the dispute relates to an award of a contract for the construction of 120 LIG and 204 MIG houses at Block A, Pocket N, Shalimar Bagh, New Delhi. In terms of the Agreement No. 4/EE/HDXII/76-77, the commencement of the construction took place on 02.04.1977 and the date of completion was 01.04.1978. The actual date of completion, however, was 31.12.1981. The contractor, the petitioner herein had claims and since the respondent did not accept the claims, recourse was taken to arbitration proceedings in terms of arbitration clause between the parties. The arbitration was invoked on 21.04.1987 and the award was made on 03.08.1989 by Shri K.D. Bali, sole arbitrator. The respondent filed the present objections and the matter has been pending since then.

(2.) The first submission of learned counsel for the respondent/objector is that though the award purports to be a reasoned award, there are actually no reasons given in the award. am unable to accept the contention since a reading of the award shows the basic reason for the award/claims. It is not necessary for the arbitrator to go into a mathematical calculation for each award and the award is not to be like a judgment in a civil suit. am fortified on this aspect by the judgment of the Division Bench of this court in DDA Vs. Bhagat Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd., 2004(3) Arb. LR 481 : 2004(4) R.A.J. 228 (Del.) (DB) , where it was held that where an expert arbitrator is appointed like the Director General of CPWD on the basis of his work experience and awarded certain amounts, the arbitrator is not required to write a detailed judgment as judges do for it to be a reasoned award. It is sufficient if he indicates his trend and the outlines, the basis on which he has arrived at the figure. That was a case where an amount of Rs. 16.50 lakhs was claimed by the claimant and the award was restricted to Rs. 3.5 lakhs on account of delays attributable to the awarded party.

(3.) The second submission of learned counsel for the respondent arises from the first claim where a direction has been issued for refund of security. Learned counsel for the respondent seeks to contend that security has been directed to be refunded without any adjustment from the counter-claim. I am unable to accept this plea of the learned counsel for the respondent for the reason that I do not read the award in the manner sought to be read by the learned counsel for the respondent. All that the arbitrator has said is that this amount is liable to be refunded back and the counter-claims shall be dealt with separately. The claims and the counter-claims have to be read together since it forms a part of the award that it cannot be said that the security amount has to be refunded de hors the remaining part of the award.