D C KAPUR Vs. DDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IA No.126/1996 (under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act,1940) The petitioner-contractor was awarded the work of construction of houses and scooter garages under the SFS Scheme. The disputes arose between the parties and in terms of Clause 25, the Arbitration clause, the Engineer Member of DDA had appointed Shri. K.K. Reddy, Chief Engineer (Vigilance) as the Sole Arbitrator as per letter dated 25.9.1989. The Arbitrator resigned and subsequently Shri K.S. Gangadhar was appointed the Arbitrator in his place. The Arbitrator made and published his award on 17.3.1995.

(2.) The respondent aggrieved by the same have filed the present objections.

(3.) A perusal of the ground set out in the objection petition show that the respondent is under a mistaken belief that the present proceedings are in the nature of Regular First Appeal where matters of evidence need to be re-examined and reappreciated. In my considered view this is not the scope of enquiry in respect of the challenge to an award and unless the grounds as set out in provisions of Section 30 of the Arbitration Act 1940 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) are satisfied the award ought not to be interferred with. The Division Bench of this Court in DDA Vs. Bhagat Construction Company and Anr. 2004 (3) Arbitration Law Reporter 481, observed that it is not the function of this Court to re-appreciate the evidence or to interfere with the award merely because the Court would come to a different conclusion than the one arrived at by the Arbitrator. Thus until and unless the award is contrary to law it is not ordinarily for the Court to re-appreicate the evidence. In the absence of an award being absurd reasonableness is not a matter to be considered as held by the Apex Court in Food Corporation of India Vs. Joginder Pal Mohinder Pal and Another 1989 (2) SCC 347.