Anil Dev Singh, J. (Oral)

( 1 ) THE arbitrator Shri K. D. Bali, Engineer Member, DDA, rendered his award on September 25, 1982 in regard to which an application has been made by the petitioner under sections 14, 17 and 29 of the Arbitration Act for making it a rule of the court, and objections have been filed by the first respondent for setting aside the same. Briefly stated the facts are as follows :-

( 2 ) THE petitioner and the first respondent entered into an agreement dated February 6, 1988 by virtue of which the petitioner was to execute the work of construction, namely "convenient Shopping Centre" near multi-storeyed flats at East of Kailash, Pocket II. The stipulated dates of commencement of the work and the completition thereof were February 16, 1988 and August 15, 1988 respectively. It is not disputed by both the parties that the work was actually completed on November 2, 1989. The payment of the final bill was made to the petitioner on March 21, 1991. After the payment of the final bill, the petitioner raised certain disputes which were referred to the abovementioned arbitrator on September 6, 1991. The arbitrator after giving opportunity to both the sides to file documentary evidence and after hearing the parties rendered the award on September 25, 1992. The first respondent not being satisfied with the award filed objections on May 20, 1994.

( 3 ) THE learned counsel appearing for the first respondent submits that the award in respect of claims No. 2,3,4,7 and 11 suffer from legal infirmities in as much as the arbitrator has not properly appreciated the evidence on record, misconstrued the agreement and consequently travelled beyond the terms thereof. The main attack of the learned counsel for the respondent is directed against the award of claims No. 8 and 9 of the award. He vehemently contends that the award on these claims suffers from error apparent on the face of the record. He also urges that award on the said items does not disclose any reasons. On the other hand, learned, counsel for the petitioner submits that the award does not suffer from any illegality much less any error apparent on the face of the award. He also contends that the Arbitrator has not traversed beyond the agreement.

( 4 ) I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. It is well settled that the arbitrator is the best judge of both the quantity and quality of the evidence produced before him. It is also well settled that the court in considering the legality of the award is not concerned with the merits of the case and cannot appreciate evidence in order to arrive at a conclusion different than the one arrived at by the arbitrator. Rather appreciation of evidence by the Arbitrator is never a matter which the court can question. Learned counsel for the first respondent has not been able to point out any error apparent on the face of the award in so far as claims No. 2,3,4,7 and 11 are concerned. The learned counsel is also not able to show as to how the Arbitrator travelled outside the agreement while dealing with claims 2,3,4,7 and 11 of the petitioner. Basically his argument concerns the merits of the award. This is one area in which the court cannot interfere. Accordingly, the contention of the learned counsel for the first respondent in regard to the challenge to the award in respect of claims No. 2,3,4,7 and 11 is rejected.

( 5 ) IN so far as award in respect of claims No. 8 and 9 is concerned, learned counsel for the first respondent vehemently contends that the arbitrator was not justified in clubbing both the claims together, and passing a lumpsum consolidated award. He also submits that the arbitrator has not given any reasons for awarding an amount of Rs. 50,000. 00 in favour of the petitioner in respect of the said claims. Before commenting upon the submission of the learned counsel for the first respondent it may be convenient, at this stage, to refer to the objections of the first respondent in regard to

Click Here to Read the rest of this document