BEDI CONSTRUCTION CO Vs. DDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IA No. 7625/1995 (U/Sec. 30&33 of the Arbitration Act. 1940) The petitioner-contractor was awarded the work of construction Of 1008 dwelling units under SFS scheme; Sector C Pocket IX, Vasant Kunj in pursuance to an agreement dated IA. 7625/199S & CS(05) 2822/1994 28.01.1985. The work was completed by the petitioner, but disputes arose about the payment of the amount which resulted in a reference being made to the sole arbitration of Sh. Shyam Narayan, Sole Arbitrator in terms of clause 25 of the agreement. The arbitrator was appointed by the engineer member DDA as per the arbitration clause vide letter dated 14.05.1992 and the arbitrator made and published the award dated 17.11.1994.

(2.) The respondent aggrieved by the award has filed objections u/s 30 & 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as 'said Act').

(3.) Learned counsel for the respondent has taken me through the various claims awarded,' but, after initial arguments, cannot seriously dispute the fact that it is not the scope of scrutiny of this court to reappraise the evidence before the arbitrator. Thus to the extent that the claims are based on the appreciation of evidence, the same cannot be re-scrutinized by this court. This would amount to this court sitting as a court of appeal, which is not permissible. It is not for this court to interfere with an award merely on the basis that the court would crime to a different conclusion on the material available before the arbitrator. It is only in the eventuality of the award being totally perverse that such interference is called for, and, in this behalf, a reference may be made to a Division Bench Judgement in DDA Vs. Bhagat Construction Co.(P) Ltd. & Anr., 2004 (3) Arb.LR 481. The apex court has observed that in the absence of an award being absurd reasonableness is not the matter to be considered by the court as appraisement of evidence by an arbitrator is not ordinarily a matter for the court. Judgments of the apex court in Food corporation of India Vs. Mohinderpal & Anr., (1989) 2 SCC 347 & Guiarat Water Supply & Sewer Erectors (Gujarat) (P) Ltd. & Anr., AIR 1989 SC 973 may be referred for this purpose.