Delhi High Court
Hans Construction Co. vs Delhi Development Authority And Anr. on 8 March, 1994
Equivalent citations: 1994IAD(DELHI)984, 54(1994)DLT477, 1994(28)DRJ656, (1994)108PLR78
JUDGMENT J.K. Mehra, J.
(1) These are the objections against the award of Shri V.R. Vaish, sole arbitrator dated 20.12.1988 regarding contract for 304 Lig houses of Pashchim Puri Block No.B. Pocket BG-3 I/C water supply sanitary installations and internal development of the land vide agreement No.9/DDAI/DDA/82-83.
(2) As would appear from the discussion here in under the award has been objected to by the respondents mainly on two grounds, that is (I)The arbitrator was required to give a reasoned award, but the reasons, which he has given are no reasons in the eye of law in respect of his findings on various claims and (II)The arbitrator had no jurisdiction to award pendente lite interest.
(3) In considering the award, I have already held in M/sS. Sony & Co. Vs. Delhi Development Authority(Suit No.1216/90)decidcd on 17.12.1993 that the Court is not to sit in appeal nor will Court interfere with an award for insufficiency of reasons. The Court will also not reappraise the evidence as it is not sitting in appeal over the findings of the arbitrator. A reference be made to the following cases:-
1.Hindustan Tea Company Vs. Shashikant and Co..
2.Food Corporation Vs. reported as 1989 (2) JT 89.
3.Union of India Vs. T.S. Sandha and Co.. reported as 1987 (2) Arbitration Law Reporter 131, and
4.Delhi Development Authority Vs. M/sAlkaram, reported as .
(4) In the light of the above position of law, I have considered the objections to various claims as under :- Claim No.1 (5) The objectors have alleged that the arbitrator has not given any reasons for release of the security deposit of Rs. I lakh in favor of the petitioner. I am unable to appreciate this objection. After the conclusion of the work and various claims have been adjudicated upon, the security is no longer required to be retained by the respondents. The security has to be released as admittedly, the work had been completed and all deductions had already been considered in claims and counter claims. The reasons given by the arbitrator are quite clear. I do not Find any infirmity in the Findings of the petitioner on this claim. The p73 objection is accordingly rejected. Claims No.3, 4 and 5 (6) It is pointed out by the objector that as per the Cpwd specifications under para 13.1.4.3 of Chapter-13, the rates include the cost of rounding, champhering and contend that champhering means grooving. The arbitrator, I may notice, is a retired Director General of Cpwd and that man, it cannot be said. had no understanding of these technical terms. He has taken into consideration all the material and contentions and has given his reasons for reaching a particular conclusion. It is not for the Court to substitute its own conclusions for those of the Arbitrator nor is it for the Court to interfere with the wrong conclusions or failure of the arbitrator to appreciate the facts as the Court cannot reappraise the evidence and that this will not be a ground for interfering with the Findings of the arbitrator. The Court also cannot sit in appeal over the award and in case the view taken by the arbitrator is a plausible view.Court shall refrain from interfering with the Findings of the arbitrator. As has been pointed out above, sufficiency or insufficiency of reasons would also be no ground for interfering with the Findings of the arbitrator. In the light of the above position under law. I do not Find any scope for interfering with the findings of the arbitrator on claims No.3,4 and 5.
(7) On claim No.5, particularly, the arbitrator has said that even though there is a mistake in the agreement, the items cannot be changed after the agreement is entered into and the amount that becomes payable in terms of the agreement, has to be paid by the respondents. I Find nothing wrong with this reasoning. As such, the objections relating to this claim are rejected. Claim No.6 (8) The arbitrator has apparently gone into great details regarding unjustified recoveries, deductions and reductions and has come to the conclusion that the alleged shortage under this claim appears to have resulted from working out the quantity of the material supplied on the basis of three decimals instead of up to two decimals. In fact, nothing to the contrary has been brought to my notice whether from the contract or any other material in this connection. In that view of the matter, the objection to this claim is also rejected. Claim No.8 (9) Similarly, objections have been raised to the Findings of the arbitrator on claim No.8 regarding refund of the rebate deducted. I do not find any merit in the objections and Finding of arbitrator, in view of his reasons cannot be faulted and the same are rejected. Claim No.9 (10) On claim No.9, my attention has been drawn to the fact that after the submission of the tender, negotiations were undertaken between the parties. As a result whereof, the contractor was allowed the rates quoted keeping in view the fact that the price of bricks had undergone a considerable enhancement. It is pointed out that the tender was invited on24.2.1982. It was submitted on 19.3.1982. The price in crease in the bricks took place on 1.6.1982. Negotiations for the rates were held on 7.6.1982, which is referred to in the letter of the claimants of 8.6.1982,a part where of reads as under:- "With reference to the discussion/negotiation held with you on 7.6.82 in regards to our tender dt.l9.3.82 in the above cited work, we would like to mention that due to sharp price in prices of building material particularly of bricks, it will not be possible for us to reduce our rates from 92.46% above."
(11) The above letter cannot admit of any interpretation except that the contractor had justified quoting the rates and his inability to reduce his rates from 92.46% above as those rates were to absorb the increase in price of bricks which had already taken place before 8.6.1982. It was subsequent to this that the tender was accepted on 24.6.1982. These facts appear to have been totally ignored by the arbitrator. If the question is viewed in the light of letter dated 8.6.1982 wherein the question of increase in price that had already taken place on that date and the acceptance of tender came after the aforesaid discussion and the contractor's letter, the arbitrator could not have reached any other conclusion other than what is stated above and should have disallowed this part of the claim. The arbitrator has merely proceeded on the fact that the increase in price of bricks had taken place after the receipt of tenders, but has completely overlooked the deliberations that took place before the acceptance of tender. For that reason, the findings and the award of the arbitrator on this claim are set aside. Claim No.14 (12) The objections on claim No. 14 for damages for idle labour etc. are not tenable as it is not something extraneous to the agreement, but is arising out of the same and the arbitrator has rightly awarded the sum of Rs.18,000.00 for the reasons given by him. I do not Find any infirmity in these findings of the arbitrator. As such, the objections to this claim are rejected. Claim No.15 (13) The objection to claim No.15 regarding award of interest is also not tenable in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Secretary, Irrigation Department, Orissa Government Vs. G.C. Roy, reported as 1991 (6) Jt 349 and State of Orissa Vs. B.N. Agarwala, reported as 1992 (Supplement) Jt 552. As such, that objection is without any merit and is also rejected.
(14) The net result is that the award of the arbitrator is upheld except in respect of claim No.9 and the same is made rule of the Court. Let a decree be drawn up. The award will form a part of the decree. The claimant shall also be entitled to interest from the date of the decree till the date of payment @ 10% p.a. Suit is disposed of.