NARAIN DAS R ISRANI Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was awarded the work of construction of MIG Houses in various sectors in Rohini and an Agreement was entered into bearing No. 2/RPD-IV/DDA/84-85. The work was completed on 04.02.1986 with the delay of about 5 months. There were disputes between the parties about the claims of the petitioner and the petitioner invoked Clause 25 of the Agreement between the parties being the arbitration clause. In terms of the invocation, the Engineer Member, DDA under the cover of the letter dated 23.08.1991 appointed Shri S.C. Kapoor, Chief Engineer (Retd.) as the Sole Arbitrator. The Arbitrator made and published the Award on 30.12.1999.

(2.) The respondent DDA filed objections under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 to all the claims awarded.

(3.) Learned counsel for the parties were heard at length on the objections claim-wise and it would be appropriate to consider the same accordingly. It may be noticed that in respect of a large number of claims, though initially learned counsel for the respondent sought to canvass the objections, no basis could be pointed out for interfering with the Award of the Arbitrator. Allegations have been made of the Arbitrator not recording reasons, but it could not be disputed that reasons, in fact, have been recorded in respect of the claims. There was no misconduct or error in the Award. This Court is not to sit as an appellate authority over the Award and unless it is shown that there is denial of the principles of natural justice in respect of grant of hearing, the Arbitrator has misconducted himself in law or otherwise or has passed the Award contrary to the legal provisions, the Award would call for no interference. The view taken by the Arbitrator in respect of the interpretation of clauses and appreciation of evidence has to be respected and merely because a different view could be arrived at by this Court on the same material cannot be a ground to set aside the Award. It is really only claims No. 2, 10, 17, 22, 23 and 24 on which arguments have been addressed by learned counsel for the respondent. CLAIM NO. 2 :-