Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

D.K. Jain, J

1. These are respondent no.1/India Tourism Development Corporation's (for short the ITDC) objections against the award dated 26 May 1993 made by Shri K.L. Sehgal, appointed as the sole arbitrator in the matter.

2. The work of supply , installation, testing and commissioning of electrical system at Hotel Ashok, Bhopal (M.P.) was awarded by the ITDC to the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the contractor) vide work order no.Engg/HQ/E&M/BPL/Electric/Contract dated 11 October 1985. The work was to commence from 15 October 1985 and the period stipulated for completion was nine months i.e. by 14 July 1986. The formal agreement was executed on 3 January 1986. It is alleged that the ITDC changed the layout and drawings for the electrical work, as a result whereof the quantity of work in creased; on account of abnormal delay in completion of the civil work the site was not handed over to the contractor on time, with the result that the execution of electrical work was also delayed. On account of increase in the quantity of work and the delay in handing over the site, the contractor made claims for increase in points etc. and escalation in the price of materials used. The ITDC did not accept the claims preferred by the contractor. Thus the disputes having arisen between the parties, the contractor invoked the arbitration clause, contained in the agreement and the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the ITDC, the persona designata, appointed the above named arbitrator as the sole arbitrator to determine the disputes/claims raised by the contractor. After hearing the parties, the learned arbitrator made and published his award on 26 May 1993.

3. In all, five claims were raised by the contractor and two counter claims by the ITDC. Each party resisted the claims/counter claims of the other. In his award, the learned arbitrator allowed contractor's claim no.1 and 2 (in part) and disallowed his claims no. 2 and 3. Against claim no.5, for interest, he allowed future interest from the date of award till payment in case payment was not made within three months. ITDC's counter claims were disallowed.

4. On the contractor's filing a petition under Section 14 and 17 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (registered as Suit No.1604/93), the arbitrator filed his award; notice was issued to the parties, pursuant whereto the ITDC filed objections (IA No.2529/94) against the award pertaining to contractor's claims no.1(a), 1(b) and relating to extra items no.2 to 7, inter alia, praying for setting aside of the award on these claims.

5. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issue was framed:

"Whether the award is liable to be set aside on the grounds stated in the objection petition?."

6. Keeping in view the nature of the objections, it was directed that since the record of the arbitrator was to be considered while disposing of the objections, no further evidence was required to be lead.

7. The objections raised by the ITDC against award on the said claims are: (1) that since the amount of the claim in dispute was more than Rs.50,000/-, the arbitrator, in terms of arbitration clause 48 of the agreement, was obligated to give reasons for the award, which he has failed to do and has thus, misconducted himself and the proceedings; (2) that various quantities awarded for the extra work executed by the contractor under claim no. 1 (a), are without any basis and justification; the arbitrator disregarded the measurements recorded in the Measurement Book and no reasons for allowing the excess quantities have been given; (3) that the award in respect of claim no. 1(b) is again without any basis, and is arbitrary and by awarding the amount of Rs.3 lacs by way of escalation for the period from July 1986 to June 1990, the arbitrator acted beyond the contract and thereby exceeded his jurisdiction and (4) there was no basis or justification for award of any amount over and above the amount admitted by ITDC.

13. It is not in dispute that the lay out of various electrical points was changed by the ITDC and there was change/increase of points etc. Not being fully satisfied with the claim for extra quantities made by the contractor, it appears, the arbitrator required the contractor to prepare the completion drawings and the list of inventory, which was done. The said drawings were not disputed by the ITDC. The learned arbitrator analysed these accepted drawings and then, after hearing the parties, determined the quantities of various items which were to be increased. The objection regarding the quantum, now raised by the learned counsel for the ITDC, cannot be entertained. It was a matter of details and merits, to be decided by the arbitrator, which he has done. It cannot be said that the quantities of extra items determined by the learned arbitrator are without any basis, warranting interference by this Court.