(1.) The respondent/DDA has filed objections under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 in respect of the award dated 28.11.1995 of Shri K.D. Bali, sole arbitrator. The respondent awarded a contract to the petitioner for construction of MIG category houses at Loni. The agreement between the parties contained the standard clause of arbitration. The contract was delayed and it is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was entitled to escalation on account of delay apart from other claims.
(2.) It must be noted at the inception itself that this Court does not sit as a court of appeal to reappraise evidence and the material on record. It is, in fact, no ground to set aside an award, even if this Court would have taken a different view from that of an arbitrator or would have come to a different conclusion on the material available before the arbitrator. It is only in the eventuality of an award being totally perverse that an interference would be called for as has been held by the Division Bench of this Court in DDA Vs. Bhagat Construct Co. (P) Ltd. and Anr. 2004 (3) Arb. LR 481. The Apex Court has, in fact, observed that in the absence of an award being absurd, reasonableness is not the matter to be considered by the court as appraisement of evidence by an arbitrator is not ordinarily a matter for the court. In this behalf reference be also made to the judgements of the Apex Court in Food Corporation of India Vs. Joginderpal Mohinderpal and Anr. (1989) 2 SCC 347 and Gujarat Water Supply and Sewerage Board Vs. Unique Erectors (Gujarat) (P) Ltd. and Anr. AIR 1989 SC 973.
(3.) The Supreme Court has also observed in M/s. Sudarsan Trading Co. Vs. Govt. of Kerala AIR 1989 SC 890 that insofar as the interpretation of a contract is concerned, same is a matter for the arbitrator and on which the court cannot substitute its own decision. Thus, so long as the view taken by the arbitrator is plausible, though perhaps not the only correct view, the award cannot be examined by the court.