R P BUILDERS Vs. DDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE suit was registered on receipt/filing of arbitral award dated 19th May, 1994 in this court. Notice of filing of the arbitral award was issued to the parties and the petitioner M/s R. P. Builders filed IA No. 633/1996 under sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act objecting to the award in so far as rejecting/declining its claims. Pleadings in the said application were completed and on 19 th September, 1997 the usual issues framed. Though the parties were directed to file affidavit evidence and there is on record an affidavit by way of evidence on behalf of the petitioner but on 24 th september, 1998 both the counsels stated that the arbitration proceedings which had been received in this court, only be read as evidence in the present suit and no further evidence was required to be recorded. The respondent DDA has not filed any objections to the award. The counsels for the parties have been heard.

(2.) CLAIM No. 1 of the petitioner before the arbitrator was of Rs. 30,000/- on account of unlawful withholding of the said amount from the final bill for the reason of quality control. During the course of proceedings before the arbitrator the respondent DDA admitted that a sum of Rs. 20,300/- out of the said deductions was releasable in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner also on 26th August, 1993 agreed to withdraw the claim for Rs. 30,000/- subject to the amount of Rs. 20,300/- being released to him on or before 30th September, 1993. The arbitrator records that the said monies were not so released by the respondent DDA in favour of the petitioner. The arbitrator however under the said claim awarded the sum of Rs. 20,300/- only to the petitioner. The counsel for the petitioner has contended that there is no reason in the award for not allowing the entire claim of Rs. 30,000/ -.

(3.) UNDOUBTEDLY the arbitrator has been swayed by the offer of the petitioner in the hearing on 26th August, 1993 to withdraw the entire claim of Rs. 30,000/- if rs. 20,300/- admitted by DDA were paid on or before 30th September, 1993. Technically speaking, the offer of the petitioner for withdrawing the claim of rs. 30,000/- was conditional to the payment being made by the stipulated date and on that payment being not made by the stipulated date the said offer disappeared. However, what cannot be lost sight of is that the arbitrator is a private court/forum chosen by the parties themselves as an alternative to the court and for the sake of expediency. Arbitration was/is not intended to be a first step in litigation. A party opting for arbitration makes a conscious choice that instead of hierarchy of courts as under the ordinary law of land being available to him, he would be bound by the order/award of such private court/forum. The role of the courts against the said awards is very limited and supervisory. The parties having made such a choice take the inherent risk of the said arbitrator's sense of justice and fair play. The courts, unless find the sense of justice/fair play applied by the arbitrator to be totally perverse are not to interfere with the same. The arbitrator has in the award stated that he has examined the statements and evidence of the parties and their respective submissions. If after such an exercise the arbitrator has chosen to dispose of the claim No. 1 with the award for an admitted amount only, considering the amount involved and totality of the circumstances, in my opinion no perversity or misconduct can be attributed to the arbitrator. The arbitrators are entitled to draw general conclusions. The counsel for the petitioner also neither in the objections nor at the time of hearing pointed out any such material on the arbitral record from which it can be said that the balance amount of Rs. 9,700/- was payable and in-spite thereof not granted by the arbitrator. I, therefore, do not find any merit in the objections with respect to the award under claim No. 1.