SUNITA CONST CO Vs. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present suit was registered on the filing of the Award dated 06.08.2011 passed by the Sole Arbitrator in the arbitration proceedings between the parties.

(2.) Upon issuance of the notice of filing of the Award to the parties, the respondent, University of Delhi filed its objection thereto under Section 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940.

(3.) Before dealing with the objection, it would be proper to remind oneself of the limit of jurisdiction of this Court while exercising power under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. In Sudarsan Trading Company v. Government of Kerala and Anr, 1989 2 SCC 38, the Supreme Court had reiterated that in exercise of power under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, the Court has no jurisdiction to substitute its own evaluation of the conclusion of law or fact to come to the conclusion that the Arbitrator had acted contrary to the bargain between the parties. Whether a particular amount was liable to be paid or damages liable to be sustained, was a decision within the competency of the Arbitrator. The Arbitrator is the sole judge of the quality as well as the quantity of evidence and it will not be for the court to take upon itself the task of being a judge on the evidence led before the Arbitrator. Appraisement of the evidence by the Arbitrator is never a matter which the Court questions and considers. If the parties have selected their own forum, the deciding forum must be conceded the power of appraisement of the evidence. The High Court has no jurisdiction to examine the different items awarded clause by clause by the Arbitrator and to hold that under the contract these were not sustainable in the facts found by the Arbitrator. An award is not invalid merely because by a process of inference and argument it may be demonstrated that the arbitrator has committed some mistake in arriving at his conclusion.