CHANDER KANT AND CO. Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are objections filed by the respondent/DDA under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 against the Award dated 31.1.1995 made and published by the sole Arbitrator.

(2.) THE principal contention of the objector is with respect to the claims which are allowed, namely, claim Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 6 to 9. The Award is a non- speaking Award inasmuch as the Arbitrator has either given his conclusion or the reasons which are given are not intelligible reasons that can be said to have nexus with the claims which have been awarded. I do not propose to burden this judgment with detailed findings on each of the claims because a reference to the Award is sufficient to show that the reasons which are given are not such reasons which can be called as reasons in law. Ms. Anusuya Salwan, counsel for the objector has relied upon a recent Division Bench judgment of this Court reported as Delhi Development Authority v. Sunder Lal Khatri and Sons, 157 (2009) DLT 555 wherein all earlier judgments have been referred to including the Division Bench judgment of this court of College of Vocational Studies v. S.S. Jaitley, AIR 1987 Delhi 134. After analyzing all the judgments, the Division Bench has approved the ratio as given in the judgment of the Calcutta High Court reported as Union of India v. Royal Construction (2002)1 CHN 13 and which ratio is as under :

(3.) ACCORDINGLY , I remit this matter back to the Arbitrator under Section 16 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 for passing a fresh Award which should be a reasoned and speaking Award. I may note that the Arbitrator in this case has awarded interest @ 15% per annum. I may refer to the recent Supreme Court judgments, namely, Rajendra Construction Co. v. Maharashtra Housing & Area Development Authority & ors., SSC 2005(6) 678, McDermott International Inc. v. Burn Standard Co. Ltd.& ors., 2006(11) SCC 181, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corpn. v. Indag Rubber Ltd. (2006) 7 SCC 700 and Krishna Bhagya Jala Nigam Ltd. v. G. Harischandra, 2007(2) SCC 720 wherein it has been held that on account of the changed economic scenario and the falling rates of interest, it is necessary for the adjudicating authorities to take into account this fact and accordingly award suitable reduction in the rates of interest. The Arbitrator should keep in mind the ratio of the aforesaid judgments while awarding the interest.