ASSOCIATED BUILDERS Vs. DDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was awarded the contract for construction of SFS houses at Sarita Vihar, Sector I, in pursuance to the agreement no. 14/EE/CPD-5/DDA/84- 85. Disputes arose between the parties and in view of Clause 25 being the arbitration clause of the terms and conditions of the contract, the Engineer Member DDA vide letter dated 25.11.1991 appointed Sh. M.S.Telang, Chief Engineer (Retd.) of CPWD and DDA as the sole arbitrator. The arbitrator made and published his award dated 06.12.1995. The respondent aggrieved by the same has filed the objections under section 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act').

(2.) Learned counsel for the respondent has taken me through the award and the arbitral record. Learned counsel seeks to argue each of the objections on merits, but in my considered view, this is not the jurisdiction of this court. The court does not sit as a court of appeal to scrutinize evidence and facts on record. It is not the jurisdiction of this court to interfere with an award because on the same set of facts and evidence on record, this court may come to a different conclusion. So long as the conclusion arrived at by the arbitrator is a plausible one, it is not for this Court to interfere with the award. It is not the jurisdiction of this court to scrutinize each claim in this behalf. A reference may be made in this behalf to the Division Bench judgment of this court in DDA v. Bhagat Constructon Co.Pvt.Ltd., 2004 (3) Arb.LR 481 and of the Apex Court in M/s Sudarsan Trading Co. v. Govt of Kerala; AIR 1989 Supreme Court 890. It is in view thereof that learned counsel for the respondent was asked to point out the specific claims in respect of which scrutiny would be permissible within the parameters of Section 30 of the said Act since until and unless an objection falls within the said parameters, this court is not required to scrutinize the same, as held by the Apex Court in State of UP v. Allied Constructions, (2003) 7 SCC 396.

(3.) Learned counsel for the respondent referred to claim no.6. The said claim has been awarded to the petitioner on consideration of the two conditions being conditions 10 and 11 of the agreement. The arbitrator has construed the two conditions and come to the conclusion of awarding the amount of Rs 1080 which does not call for interference.