P C SHARMA Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was awarded the Contract for construction of category 3 SFS Houses at Sarita Vihar, Sector-1 in pursuance to Agreement No.10/EE/CPD V/84-85 by the respondents. The work was completed but there was a delay of 43 months in the completion of the work. The petitioner raised certain claims and since the same were disputed by the respondent, the petitioner filed a petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) before this Court. In the said proceedings Shri S.P. Kapil was appointed as the Sole Arbitrator to enter upon reference and adjudicate the disputes in view of the existence of Clause 25 of the general terms and conditions of the Contract being the Arbitration Clause. The Arbitrator made and published his award on 20.2.1997. The respondent aggrieved by the same has filed the present objections under Sections 30 and 33 of the said Act.

(2.) Learned counsel for the respondent initially made an attempt to take this Court through each of the claims to contend that the said claims must be examined by this Court. Such a course of action is not permissible in view of the fact that this Court does not sit as a Court of appeal to examine and reappreciate the evidence and facts on record. So long as the view taken by the Arbitrator is a plausible view it is not for this Court to interfere with an award merely because this Court may come to another equally plausible view. In the absence of the award being absurd, the award is not liable to be intereferred with. In this behalf reference may be made to the judgement of the Supreme Court in M/s Sudarsan Trading Co. v. Govt of Kerala; AIR 1989 SC 890 and Arosan Enterprices Ltd v. Union of India and Anr; 1999(3) Arbitration Law Reporter 310.

(3.) It is also necessary to put at rest a controversy which is sought to be raised about the award being not a reasoned award. The award undoubtedly is cryptic but in my considered view cannot be said to be devoid of reasons. An Arbitrator is not like a judge who has to write a judgement and thus the parameters for determining whether an award is a reasoned award is not akin to a judgement. In this behalf the judgement of the Division Bench of this Court in DDA v. Bhagat Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd., 2004 (3) Arb LR 481 may be referred to. This question has also been recently considered in CS (OS) No.995A of 1995 titled Shri D.C. Kapur Vs. DDA and Anr. decided on 8.2.2006. The judgement of the Apex Court in Goa, Daman and Diu Housing Board Vs. Ramakant V.P. Darvotkar AIR 1991 Supreme Court 2089 was taken note of and this Court agreed with the view expressed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vikramajit Sen in Suit No.21-A of 1996 Shri Anil Garg Vs. DDA and Ors. decided on 17.12.1999. The legal position which emerges is that so long as an Arbitrator was mindful of the contention raised and has considered the same it cannot be said that there is absence of reasons. Learned single Judge in Shri Anil Garg case (Supra) observed as under: