Back
High Court Of Delhi
SALWAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY - Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA - Respondent
Suit 1403-A of 1986
Decided On : 09/05/1989
ARBITRATION - SETTING ASIDE AWARD - GROUNDS - LIMITATION - MISCONDUCT OF ARBITRATOR - INTEREST ON AWARD.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, a construction company, was awarded a contract by respondent, Union of India, for the construction of an M.S.O. building. Disputes arose between the parties, which were referred to arbitration. The arbitrator made an award in favor of the petitioner, which was challenged by the respondent on various grounds, including limitation, misconduct of the arbitrator, and the grant of interest on the award.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the claims were within limitation and that there was no error apparent on the face of the award which required interference by the court. The court also held that the arbitrator did not misconduct himself in allowing the claims and that he had given sufficient reasons for his conclusions. The court further held that the arbitrator was entitled to award interest on the award from the date of the award till the date of payment or decree, whichever was earlier.
Issues: 1. Whether the award dated 6th June, 1986 is liable to be set aside on any of the grounds as mentioned in the objection petition I A No. 2432/87? 2. Relief.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The scope and extent of examination, by the Court, of the award made by an arbitrator, has been laid down in various decisions. As held, by the Division Bench of this Court in College of Vocational Studies v. S S. Jatiley A. I. R. 1987, Delhi, 134, there are limits for judicial reviewability and the Courts exercise limited jurisdiction in the proceedings, for setting aside an award. 2. The Courts do not exercise appellate jurisdiction over the verdict of an arbitrator and, as such, cannot go into the merits of the case, nor the Courts can re-appraise and re-examine the evidence, led before the arbitrator. 3. The Courts, also can not look into the insufficiency of the evidence, led before the arbitrator.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the objections filed by the respondent and made the award a Rule of the Court. The court also passed a decree in terms of the award.
( 1 ) SALWAN Construction Company, the present petitioner, was awarded by respondent no. 1, the work for construction of M. S. O. building, at plot No. 35, Block D and D-1, at the estimated cost of Rs. 41,17,513. 00 , on the terms and conditions, as incorporated in the agreement No. 16/ee/cd-II/69-70.
( 2 ) UNDER the agreement, the work was to commence on January 21, 1970, and was to be completed within a period of 18 months, i. e. on or before July 20, 1970. It is not disputed that the work was completed on March 28,1974.
( 3 ) VARIOUS disputes arose between the parties, under the agreement, which provided for settlement by arbitration, under clause 25. Vide his letter dated December 24,1984, Chief Engineer, (CZ) C. P. W. D. , New Delhi, appointed Shri Sarvesh Chandra, as the sole arbitrator, to decide the disputes between the parties, as were referred to him. The arbitrator entered upon reference, on January 21, 1984.
( 4 ) PETITIONER and Union of India filed claims and counter claims respectively, before the arbitrator.
( 5 ) PETITIONER made the following claims :
CLAIM No. 1 : The Claimant claims a sum of Rs. 72, 285. 00 on account of alleged unjustified recovery For excess use of cement. The supply of cement in bags was made short in weight by Central stores and the claimant was asked to use cement by weight. Claim No. 2 : The Claimants claim a sum of Rs. 38,100. 00 on a/c alleged wrong recovery made in final bill for extra item of terrazo tiles in flooring though the tiles passed the abrasion test. Claim No. 3 : The Claimants claim a sum of Rs. 746. 00 or there-abouts on account of Mild steel flat. Claim No. 4 : The Claimants claim a sum of Rs. 8,378. 00 or there-abouts on account of alleged wrong recovery towards flush door shutters. Claim No. 5 : The Claimants claim a sum of Rs. 3,823. 00 or there-abouts on account of alleged wrong recovery towards particle board. Claim No. 6 : The Claimants claim a sum of Rs. 3,770. 00 or there-abouts for alleged wrong recovery towards roofing felt used on the work. Claim No. 7 : The Claimants claim a sum of Rs. 2,680. 00 or there-abouts on account of alleged wrong recovery in respect of white glazed tiles. Claim No. 8: The Claimants claim a sum of Rs. 5,621. 00 or there-abouts on account of alleged wrong recovery in respect of Cuddapah stone. Claim No. 9 : The Claimants claim a sum of Rs. 3,725. 74 or there-abouts alleged to have been wrongly recovered towards Mastic treatment. Claim No. 10: The Claimants claim a sum of Rs. 1,916. 92 or there-abouts alleged wrong recovery towards screws for various items of wood work. Claim No. 11 : The Claimants claim a sum of Rs. 915. 00 (Rs. 274+934-398) or there-abouts on account of alleged less payment for the item of plastering. Claim No. 12: The Claimants claim a sum of Rs. 1,694. 00 (Rs. 1296+398) or there-abouts on account of alleged wrong recovery towards screws etc. in aluminium windows. Claim No. 13 : The Claimants claim a sum of Rs. 644. 00 or there-abouts on account of alleged recovery for stair case railing. Claim No. 14 : The Claimants claim a sum of Rs. 644. 00 or there-abouts on account of alleged recovery in respect of ribbe glass. Claim No. 15: The Claimants claim refund of Rs. 894. 25 (Rs. 318. 25+576) or there-abouts on account of wrong recovery for marble flooring and marble veneering. Claim No. 16: The Claimants claim a sum of Rs. 267. 15 (Rs. 160. 42 plus 106. 73) or there-abouts on account of alleged wrong recovery for improper fixing clrinal pipes.
( 6 ) RESPONDENT No. 1 filed the following counter claim : Counter Claim No. 1 : The Union of India through the Executive Engineer Construction Division No. II CPWD claims a sum of Rs. 5000. 00 towards cost of inconvenience caused for unncessary dragging the department in arbitration.
( 7 ) THE arbitrator made and published his award on June 6, 1986.
( 8 ) BY his award, the arbitrator either fully or partly allowed all the claims of petitioner and rejected the counter c
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
