A R KHANNA AND SONS Vs. DDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner-contractor was awarded the contract for construction of local shopping centre at Mukherji Nagar on 08.03.1984. The work was to commence on 18.03.1984 and the stipulated date for completion was 17.03.1985. The work was delayed beyond the stipulated time and was ultimately recended by the respondents on 28.03.88. Both the parties sought to put blame on each other which resulted in disputes being referred to arbitration in terms of Clause 25 of the terms and conditions of the agreement between the parties and the engineer-member DDA vide letter dated 05.01.1990 appointed Sh.V.D.Tiwari (retd) Chief Engineer, CPWD as the sole arbitrator. The sole arbitrator made and published the award on 08.04.2002 and the respondents aggrieved by the same have filed the present objections.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the various grounds set out in the petition objection, but could not dispute the fact that all the grounds could not be pressed in view of the fact that the scope of enquiry u/s 30 & 33 of the Arbitration Act ( hereinafter referred to as 'said Act') does not permit this court to sit as a court of appeal. It is not a function of this court to re-appreciate evidence and in the absence of an award being absurd, reasonableness is not a matter to be considered by the court. The Judgment of the apex court in Food Corporation of India Vs. Joginderpal Mohinderpal & Anr., (1989) 2 SCC 347 & Gujarat Water Supply & Sewerage Board Vs. Unique Erectors (Gujarat) (P) Ltd. & Anr., AIR 1989 SC 973 may be referred. The apex court took the view in M/s Sudarsan Trading Co. Vs. Govt of Kerala; AIR 1989 Supreme Court 890 that the court is not to substitute its own mind with that of the arbitrator and so long as the view taken by the arbitrator is plausible, though perhaps not the only correct view, , the award cannot be examined by the court.

(3.) Learned counsel for the respondent also urged that award of the arbitrator is not a reasoned award. This plea is only stated to be rejected if the award is perused as the reasoning is found in respect of all the claims. An arbitrator need not disclose the mathematical calculations of an award so long as the award shows application of mind as held by the Division Bench in DDA Vs. Bhagat Construction Co.(P) Ltd. & Anr., 2004 (3) Arb.LR 548. The division bench took note of the fact that the arbitrator was a retired Chief Engineer of CPWD who was well conversant with the matters in dispute on which he was adjudicating and the position is same in the present case.