M L MAHAJAN Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner entered into a contract agreement with the respondent No. 1 for construction of 60 Janata Houses at Dilshad Garden, Delhi. The said contract agreement contained an arbitration clause being Clause No. 25. Disputes arose between the parties in respect of the aforesaid contract and accordingly the said disputes were referred to arbitration by the Engineer Member of the respondent No. 1, who was the Appointing Authority under the contract. The respondent No. 2 was appointed as the Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the claims of the parties and the said Arbitrator after hearing the parties and receiving evidence on record, made and published his aw.ard on 10.4.1991. The said award was filed in this Court as against which objections were filed by the respondent, which were registered as I.A. No. 13100/1991. This order shall dispose of the aforesaid objections filed by the respondents as also the suit filed by the petitioner.

(2.) I have heard the petitioner who appears in person as also Mr. Abhilekh Verma, appearing for the respondents. Counsel appearing for the respondent/ Objector challenged the award passed by the Arbitrator in respect of Claims No. 2, 3, 4 & 8 and Counter Claim No. 3. The Arbitrator appointed by the Appointing Authority was admittedly a technical person. The petitioner who appeared in person submitted that since the Arbitra torwas an experienced and a technical hand the Court should not interfere with his findings. In support of his submission the petitioner relied upon the decision in M/s. Hind Builders v. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 1340. In Madan Lal v. Un ion of India, 1990(1) Arbitration Law Reporter 159==40 (1990) DLT 330 and Jagdish Chander v. Hindustan Vegetable Oils Corporation, reported in 1989 (2) AIR 189. There is no dispute with regard to the aforesaid proposition of law laid down. Although the Arbitratorisa technical and experienced person there is no universal rule that such an Arbitrator cannot faulter and/or commit error apparent on the face of the record while adjudicating upon and deciding the disputes between the parties. Thus it would be necessary to scrutinise the award passed by the Arbitrator in the light of the submissions made by the Counsel appearing for the parties and in order to find out whether the award passed is in accordance with law or not.

(3.) In the context of the submission of the learned Counsel for the parties I propose to answer the issues raised in the present proceedings claim-wise seriatim.