S S JETLEY Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shri Suresh Mehta, Superintending Engineer, was appointed as an arbitrator. He filed his award before this Court dated August 21, 1996. The same was registered as Suit No. 2151-A of 1996. Notices were issued to both the parties in the said suit with regard to the filing of the award. The petitioner herein did not prefer any objections against the said award while the Delhi Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as the respondent) filed objections against the same vide I.A.No. 1149/97.

(2.) It has been submitted for and on behalf of the objector that the learned arbitrator had no jurisdiction to entertain the claims raised by the petitioner as the same were hopelessly barred by time. Thus instead of making an award in `favour of the petitioner with `regard to the said claims the same should have been rejected. The work in question was complete in August 1989 whereas the arbitration was invoked vide letter dated May 16, 1994. It is thus obvious that the claims were barred by limitation at the time of the invocation of the arbitration agreement. Most of the claims raised by the claimant were never raised during the currency of the agreement and even after the completion of the work. The said claims are an after-thought and mala fide. The impugned award is in violation of Clause 25 of the agreement whereunder the arbitrator was required to give reasons for arriving at his conclusions. The arbitrator has not given any reasons whatsoever in support of the claims awarded. He did not record any evidence with regard to the claims before awarding the same. The impugned award has been given in violation of the principles of natural justice. The award is contrary to the record and the evidence. The arbitrator has completely ignored various points in controversy involved in the present case. The so-called reasons given by the arbitrator in support of the claims awarded are no reasons at all and are totally extraneous to the points of difference in between the parties. The arbitrator has failed to apply his mind to the points in controversy. The arbitrator has misconducted himself and the proceedings. Hence the two award is liable to be set aside.

(3.) While countervailing the said submissions it has been submitted for and on behalf of the petitioner that all the claims were well within time. Hence the same were rightly entertained by the arbitrator. The arbitrator is under no obligation to write a reasoned award just like a Court. It is sufficient enough if he gives some of the reasons for awarding a particular claim in favour of a particular party. The impugned award is a well reasoned award based on evidence. It is wrong to allege that the arbitrator has misconducted himself and the proceedings. Thus it has been prayed that the impugned award alluded to above be made a rule of the Court.