JAI SINGH Vs. DDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE questions which fall for consideration in this petition under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 are two folds. Firstly, whether the expressions "

(2.) THE arbitration proceedings were governed by the 1996 Act. The arbitration proceedings were in pursuance to an arbitration agreement which itself provided that "in all cases where the amount of the claim in dispute is rs 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) and above, the arbitrator will give reason for the award. "

(3.) THE counsel for the respondent contended that from the perusal of record of arbitration proceedings it will be found that the claims of the petitioner were not in terms of the contract and/or were not established and thus the award stating so amounted to giving reasons for rejection of the claim. Reliance was placed on Gujrat Water Supply And Sewerage Board V Unique erectors (Gujrat) Pvt Ltd. AIR 1989 S. C. 973 where record of arbitration proceedings was seen by the Apex Court to determine whether the arbitrator had committed an error or not and it was held that it is not obligatory for the arbitrator to give reasons for his decision, as long as the arbitrator has indicated his mind and where the award cannot be called unintelligible. The respondent has similarly relied upon the judgment of a Single Judge of the Patna high Court in State of Bihar v Shri Gopal Chandra Palit 1996 (2) Arbitration Law reporter 30 holding that the court cannot probe the mental process of the arbitrator and speculate.