M. S. A. Siddiqui,j.

( 1 ) BY the agreement dated 13. 4. 1987, the petitioner was awarded the work of construetion of SFS flats at Vasant Kunj SH Peripheral sewerage in sector d pocket 5 to 9, New Delhi. During the execution of the contract certain disputes and differences arose between the parties with regard to the claims of the petitioner arising out of and in relation to the said contract, which were referred to the sole arbitrator in terms of the arbitration agreement. The arbitrator published his award on 14. 7. 1994 directing the respondent Delhi Development Authority to pay to the petitioner a sum of Rs. l,94,756. 00 together with interest @ 15% per annum. While the petitioner filed the petition under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act for making the award a rule of the Court, the respondent DDA filed objections under Sections 30/33 of the Arbitration Act against the award.

( 2 ) THE respondent is mainly aggrieved by the award on the petitioner s claim Nos. 1,2,additional claim No. l, claim No. 4 and rejection of counter claims preferred by it. The question for consideration is: whether the award dated 14. 7. 1994 is liable to be set aside on the basis of the objections raised by the respondent.

( 3 ) THE learned counsel appearing for the respondent DDA, in support of the objections, submits that the award is liable to be set aside on the ground that the arbitrator has not given sufficient reasons for the same. In my opinion, the said submission of the learned counsel does not hold much water. It has to be borne inmind that under the Arbitration Act, 1940, even a non-speaking award was permissible and was also outside the purview of the judicial scrutiny since the Court cannot probe into the mental process of the arbitrator to find out the reasoning which compelled him to arrive at his decision. The ground for impeaching a non-speaking award and its limitation have been explained by the Apex Court in M/s Sudarsan Trading Co. Vs. Govt, of Kerala AIR 1989 SC 890 and it was held that the Court has no jurisdiction to substitute its own evaluation on the conclusion of law or fact to come to the conclusion that the arbitrator had acted contrary to the bargain between the parties. In a recent judgment rendered by the Apex Court in M/s M. K. Shah Engineers and Contractors Vs. State of M. P. J. T. 1991 (1) SC 315, it was held that an award need not formally express the decision of the arbitrator on each matter of difference nor is it necessary for the award to be a speaking one. It will be presumed that the award disposes of finally all the matters of difference. However, in the instant case, the arbitrator has given reasons for deciding the claims and counter claims preferred by the parties.

( 4 ) CLAIM No. 1 and Counter Claim No. 4:- The petitioner preferred a claim of Rs. 70,000. 00 on account of balance payment towards the work done under the contract, while the respondent preferred a counter claim of Rs. 2939. 00 as outstanding secured advance from the petitioner. On a consideration of the material available on the record, the arbitrator has held that the petitioner has shown that an amount of Rs. 91,370. 34 is payable to it for the total work executed under the contract. According to the arbitrator, the amount payable under this head works out to Rs. 80,443. 34. However, taking into consideration of the respondent s counter claim of Rs. 2939, the arbitrator awarded a sum of Rs. 70,000. 00 to the petitioner. In my opinion, no fault can be found with the award under this head.

( 5 ) CLAIM No. 2 and Counter Claim No. 2 The Claimant claimed Rs. 70,000. 00 on account of refund of security deposit while the respondent preferred a counter claim of Rs. 82,098. 00 on account of forfeiture of the said deposit under Clause 3 (a) of the agreement. It is undisputed that the respondent had deducted the amount of security i. e. Rs. 45391. 00 from the running bills submilted by the petitioner. It is also undisputed that the date of comm

Click Here to Read the rest of this document