PURI CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) JUDGMENT J.-

(2.) THE claimant, M/s. Puri Constructions Pvt. Ltd. entered into an agreement with the Union of India for the construction of an additional unit of 'Hall of Industries' for the Third International Trade Fair, Pragati Maidan, New Delhi. THE structural work was completed on 30-10-72 and the respondent took over the building and put it to commercial use on 1-11-72, without recording completion certificate or finalising the bill of the claimant. THE International Trade Pair started on 3-11-72. THEreafter, the contractor carried out additional work as per the directions of the respondent. THE contractor in terms of the agreement claimed various sums, under numerous heads in his final bill. He was not paid any amount. THE contractor ultimately invoked the arbitration agreement on 22.2.74 and approached the Chief Engineer for referring the disputes to an arbitrator in pursuance to clause 25 of the agreement. THE Chief Engineer did not move into the matter. THE claimant filed a petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act. After contest, the Chief Engineer was directed by this Court to appoint an arbitrator. In compliance with the directions, the Chief Engineer appointed Shri Kundania as the sole arbitrator. He entered upon the reference, heard the parties and finally made and published his award on 30-6-77. THE claimant filed the objections which were accepted on 17-4-80 holding that the learned arbitrator has misconducted himself. THE appellate court confirmed the order and set aside the award. Subsequently, as the respondent failed to appoint another arbitrator, the claimant moved a fresh application. Shri N.L. Kakkar, a retired Additional District and Sessions Judge was appointed as the sole arbitrator by the order of this Court on 30-7-84.

(3.) IN face of this hurdle, one has to examine as to what is the scope or the powers of the Court to deal with the present objections. The law on this subject is well settled. As observed earlier under Section 30 of the arbitration Act this Court exercises a very limited jurisidiction and can only deal with matters within the limited scope. When the arbitrator gives reasons for his award, as in the present case, this does not open the door of the Court to see what the contentions of each party was and what was the evidence given by the parties on it and then examine the evidence to see whether the disputed findings of facts are sufficiently supported by the evidence. The theory propounded before the Court that the Court can see "the reasonableness of the reasons" if accepted would cut at the root of the whole purpose of arbitration, the basic idea of which is that the arbitrator's decision shall be final. It is also not the misconduct on the part of the arbitrator to come to an erroneous decision, whether his error is one of fact or law, and whether or not his finding of fact are supported by evidence. The Courts have gone to the extent of holding that it is no ground for coming to a conclusion on an award that the facts are wrongly found. The facts are got to be considered as found...... nor is it a ground for setting aside an award that there is no evidence on which the facts could be found, because that would be more error in law and it is not misconduct to come to a wrong conclusion in law and would be no ground for setting aside the award unless the error in law appear on the face of it. Furthermore, the weight of evidence and inferences are essential matters for the arbitrator. It is just not possible to set aside the award on the ground that there was no sufficient evidence to support it or that it was too tenuous or the like. One of the very reason for going to arbitration is to get rid of technical rules of evidence and so forth.