KALYAN CHANDRA GOYAL AND CO Vs. DDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -The petitioner was awarded the contract relating to the work of water supply lines to be laid in Sectors B, C and D in Vasant Kunj vide agreement No. 3/HDXI/A/86087. Disputes arose between the parties and in view of Clause 25 of the agreement between the parties containing the arbitration clause, the Engineer-Member, DDA appointed Sh. A. P. Paracer, Addl. Director General (Retd.), CPWD as the sole arbitrator. The arbitrator made and published his award dated 27.5.93 and thereafter the objections have been filed.

(2.) At the injception of the hearing of the objections, it was put to the learned Counsel for the respondent that his submissions must be confined to the parameters of Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. In this behalf it has to be appreciated that this Court does not sit as a Court of appeal against the award of ah arbitrator and merely because a different view has to be taken, this Court may come to a different view on appreciation of evidence, would be no ground to interfere with an award. The arbitration remedy was provided as an alternative remedy for settlement of disputes and the challenge was restricted in terms of the provisions of the said Act. In this behalf, judgment of the apex Court in Gujarat Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. Unique Erectors (Gujarat) (P) Ltd. and Anr., AIR 1989 SC 973 and Food Corporation of India v. Joginderpal Mohinderpal and Anr., (1989) 2 SCC 347 may be referred where it was clearly stated that unless the award is contrary to law, and miscoduct is with reference to either the personal misconduct of the arbitrator or misconduct in law, an award ought not to be interfered with. Appraisement of evidence by the arbitrator is ordinarily not a matter for the Court. In the absence of the award bing absurd, reasonableness is not a matter for the Court to consider. The object of appointing a technical person to go into the matter is that a person familiar with the trade in question goes into the various aspects of the matter. It is in view there to that the DDA itself appointed a person of the status of Chief Engineer/Engineer Member to deal with the matter and it has been observed in DDA v. Bhagat Construction Co. (P) Ltd. and Anr., 2004 (3) Arb.LR 548, that in view of such a technical member going ito the matter of dispute the Court should not substitute its own view with that of an arbitrator even if the Court comes to a different conclusion until and unless the decision of the arbitrator is manifestly perverse or has been arrived at on the basis of wrong application of law.

(3.) In view of the aforesaid, learned Counsel for respondent has fairly confined his submissions to the matters arising from such objection which could be liable to be considered under the provisions of Sections 30 and 33 of the Act.