(1.) This is a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') filed by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) impugning the Award passed by the Arbitrator dated 27.04.2007. As per the grounds as contained in this objection petition, the petitioner/DDA impugns the Award with respect to claim nos.1, 2, 3 and 6 as also objects to the grant of interest by the Arbitrator. Objections have also been filed to awarding of claim nos.9, 10 and 12 in favour of the respondent towards damages awarded to the respondent for delays caused in completion of work by the petitioner.
(2.) As regards claim no.1 allowed by the Arbitrator, the petitioner has pleaded that the Award is without any reasons, and hence, hit by Section 31(3) of the Act. In my opinion, the Award with respect to claim no.1 cannot be said to be a non-speaking Award and for this purpose I reproduce the relevant portion of the Award with respect to claim no.1 as under:-
(3.) A reading of the aforesaid portion of the Award pertaining to claim no.1 shows that the Arbitrator has given reasons for rejecting the notice issued by the petitioner for defective work on the ground that completion of work was recorded on 02.11.1994 and the notice of defects was issued more than two and half years later on 10.3.1997, and therefore, the contention of the petitioner for non-release of the security deposit on account of defective work was rejected. In my opinion, the reasons given with respect to the claim no.1 above are reasons in the eyes of law, and therefore, petitioner cannot object to claim no.1 awarding Rs.1 lakh on the ground that the Award is a non-speaking Award in this regard. Also, the contentions of the respondent with respect to defective work and the Notice dated 10.3.1997 have been duly considered and dealt with in the Award, and therefore, there is no reason to set aside the Award with respect to claim no.1 on the ground that the Award is a non-speaking one.