RAJDEV ENGINEERING WORKS Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DELHI Development Authority (the respondent) bad awarded the contract for internal electrification of 201 dwelling units, Phase II in Asian Games Village Complex, Shri Fort, New DELHI to M/s. Rajdev Engineering Works .(the petitioner). Agreement No. 4/PE/AGD VII/E/80-81 was executed between the parties. This agreement was governed by an arbitration clause. The disputes having arisen, the .Engineer Member of the respondent referred them to the sole arbitration of Shri M.P. Gandhi, Superintending Engineer (Electrical) of the respondent (the arbitrator), who entered upon the reference and made his award dated 19th July, 1985.

(2.) ON an application having been filed by the petitioner (Suit No. 1443-A/85), direction were issued to the arbitrator and consequently the award was filed in court. The respondent filed objections (I.A. 1180/86) challenging the award in respect of items 2,4,6,8,9 and 10 on the grounds that the arbitrator had not given reasons in support of his award; had misinterpreted the terms of the agreement between the parties and had not decided the matter in accordance with law and as such had misconducted the proceedings. The objection petition has been opposed.

(3.) THE decision in cases Krishan Kumar Madhok v. Union of India, Miss Mohinder Kaur Kochhar v. Punjab National Bank Ltd. and Slate of Orissa etc. v. Consolidated Construction Company (supra) were based on the decision of the Supreme Court in cases Firm Madanlal Roshanlal Mahajan v. Hukumchand Mills Ltd., Indore and Union of India v. Bungo Steel Furniture Pvt Ltd, (supra). While deciding the case of Executive Engineer Irrigation Galimala and others v. Abhaduta Jena (supra), the Hon'ble Judges of the Supreme Court had taken into consideration the decision of the Supreme Court incases Firm Madanlal Roshanl Mahajan v. Mukumchand Mills Ltd. and Union ofIndia v. Bungo Steel Furniture Pvt. Ltd. (supra) besides other cases decided by the Supreme Court. After considering all those cases the Hon'ble Judges held that an arbitrator is not a court within the meaning of Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure and has no power to award pendente lite interest in cases which are not referred to him in suits but where reference is made to an arbitrator in a suit the arbitrator assumes the power of the court and can award interest.