DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. MADHUR KRISHNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 10th January, 1996 passed by Devinder Gupta, J in IA No.10912/1990 and Suit No.2431-A/1990. By the impugned order the learned Judge was pleased to overrule the objections raised by the appellant DDA and make the award dated 19th July, 1990 of the sole arbitrator rule of the court.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to the present appeal are as follows:

(3.) IN reply, Shri S.K. Rungta, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, contended that it is settled legal position that where arbitrator is required to state reasons for award, as is in the present case, it does not imply that the arbitrator has to give a detailed judgment. He contended that the only requirement is that a reading of the award should indicate the thought process of the arbitrator and if award is capable of reading the mind of the arbitrator, the requirement of stating the reasons is met. He submitted that the arbitrator has looked into the contentions raised by the respective parties and also into the evidence led by the parties by dealing with each of the claims separately. In addition, the arbitrator has also given his findings on the basis of his observations and on the basis of inspection of the site in question. Furthermore, the findings of the arbitrator in respect of each of the claims were also based on admitted facts such as the fact that the site for which the tender was awarded and on the basis of which the respondent gave his rates in the bid, was shifted by the appellant and the shifted site was not of the same nature. Therefore, according to Mr.Rungta the award cannot be said to be a non-speaking award.