PURAN CHAND NANGIA Vs. DDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned counsel for the petitioner/ applicant does not press this application in view of subsequent development of law and states that the objections of the respondent are liable to be considered under the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940. Dismissed as withdrawn. IA NO.5029/2003 & IA 4014/1999 Dismissed as infructuous. IA No.6388/1996 (under Sections 30 & 33 of the Arbitration Act. 19401 The petitioner was awarded the work of construction of houses under SFS category II in Paschim Puri in pursuance to agreement no.6/EE/DDVI/DDA/84-85. In terms of the contract, the date of commencement of the work was stipulated as 17.08.1984 and the stipulated date of completion was 16.08.1985. The respondent was granted extension of time for completion of work without imposition of penalty up to 09.05.1988. The work was actually completed on 30/06.1988 and the final bill was made on 30.05.l995.

(2.) The petitioner had certain claims and in view of the disputes arising between the parties, Engineer-Member (DDA) in terms of clause 25 of the terms and conditions of the contract appointed Sh. A.C. Panchdhari, Director General of Works, CPWD (Retd.) as the sole arbitrator vide letter dated 06.09.1991. The arbitrator entered upon reference and made and published his award on 12.04.1996. The respondent aggrieved by the same, has filed the objections under sections 30- & 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act').

(3.) Learned senior counsel for the respondent fairly stated at the inception of the hearing itself that this court is not required to sit as a court of appeal to go into each claim and examine the merits of the controversy. So long as the view taken by the arbitrator is a plausible view and is not absurd, this court is not required to interfere with the award merely on account of the fact that in the given facts and the evidence on record the court may come to a different conclusion. A catena of judgments of Apex court and this court supports the proposition including M/s Sudarsan Trading Co. Vs. Govt of Kerala; AIR 1989 SC 890.