Back
1987 Supreme(Del) 336
High Court Of Delhi
VIRENDER SINGH - Appellant
Versus
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY - Respondent
Suit 1268A of 1984
Decided On : 09/07/1987
B.M.Sehgal, KADAMBRI
The death of an arbitrator before filing the award or authorizing someone to do so does not render the award unenforceable, and an arbitrator is not required to write a detailed judgment but must indicate the trend of their thought process to avoid arbitrariness.
Headnote:
ARBITRATION - FILING OF AWARD - DEATH OF ARBITRATOR - AUTHORITY TO FILE AWARD - INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 14(2) OF THE ARBITRATION ACT, 1940 - REASONS FOR AWARD - SUFFICIENCY - AWARDING AMOUNT MORE THAN CLAIMED - VALIDITY.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a contractor, was awarded a construction work by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) in 1981. Disputes arose between the parties, and the agreement provided for arbitration. The arbitrator, appointed by the DDA, made and published an award in August 1984. The petitioner filed a petition under Sections 14, 17, and 29 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, seeking to make the award a rule of the court. The DDA objected to the award, arguing that it was not filed by a duly authorized person and that it was liable to be set aside due to lack of reasons and an excessive award amount.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the award was duly filed by a person authorized by the arbitrator, as the arbitrator had died before filing the award or authorizing anyone to do so. The court interpreted Section 14(2) of the Arbitration Act to allow the filing of an award by any of the arbitrators or by a person authorized by them. The court also held that the arbitrator had provided sufficient reasons for the award and that the award of an amount greater than the claim was justified based on the evidence and measurements presented.
Issues: 1. Whether the award and proceedings were filed in court by a duly authorized person. 2. Whether the award was liable to be set aside due to lack of reasons and an excessive award amount.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 14(2) of the Arbitration Act allows the filing of an award by any of the arbitrators or by a person authorized by them. The death of an arbitrator before filing the award or authorizing someone to do so does not render the award unenforceable. 2. An arbitrator is not required to write a detailed judgment but must indicate the trend of their thought process to avoid arbitrariness. The court cannot review the reasons or comb through the award as an appellate forum, as this would amount to impeachment of the award. 3. An award cannot be set aside merely because it awards an amount greater than the claim if the arbitrator has provided sufficient reasons based on evidence and measurements.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the DDA's objections, made the award a rule of the court, and passed a decree in accordance with the award. The petitioner was also entitled to interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the award till the date of payment.
( 1 ) THE respondent No. 1, namely, Delhi Development Authority (for short d. D. A. ) awarded a construction work to the petitioner in the year 1981. Certain disputes and differences arose between the parties. The agreement provides that disputes and differences between the parties shall be referred to arbitration. On 10th January 1983 the D. D. A. appointed Sh. G. Subramaniam, its Superintending Engineer as an arbitrator to decide and make the award regarding the disputes between the parties. Shri Subramaniam entered upon the reference on 19th February 1983. Time for making and publishing the award was enlarged from time to time with the mutual consent of the parties. On 6th August 1984 Shri Subramaniam made and published his award.
( 2 ) ON 10th August 1984 the petitioner- contractor filed a petition in this Court under Ss. 14,17 and 29 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 and prayed that the arbitrator be directed to file the award dated 6th August 1984 and further prayed that the award be made a rule of the court. On 3rd September 1984 the court directed that notice be issued to respondent No. 2 the arbitrator for filing the arbitration award and the proceedings thereof. It is apparent from the record that the petitioner came to know about the death of the arbitrator from the report of the process server. Thereafter the petitioner filed an application giving particulars of the new arbitrator, namely, Shri Banarsi Das, Superintending Engineer (ARB. I) and prayed that dasti summons be given to him. Dasti summons were ordered to be given. It appears that in pursuance of these summons the award and the proceedings were filed in court and notice of filing of the award was issued to the parties. The D. D. A. filed objections to the award (LA. 1598/85 ). On the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed :
" 1. Whether the award and the proceedings have not been filed in the court by a duly authorised person ? OPO 2. Whether the award is liable to be set aside on the objections contained in I. A. 3. Relief. "
( 3 ) COUNSEL for the parties agreed that the record of the arbitration proceedings be read into evidence in support of the issues. Both the parties have filed their respective affidavits in support of their case.
( 4 ) ISSUE No. 1. The award was made and published on 6th August 1984. The D. D. A. has stated in the objection petition that Shri Subramaniam died on 18th August 1984. Shri Subramaniam did not authorise any one to file the award and the proceedings in court before his death. The original award and the proceedings were filed in this court along with a covering letter dated 11th February 1985 sent by Private Assistant to the Superintending Engineer (Arbitration) D. D. A. It has been stated in the covering letter dated 11th February 1985 that Shri Umesh Prasad Bhakta is authorised to file the original award along with all the proceedings. During the course of the arguments I was told that Shri Bhakta was an employee of D. D. A.
( 5 ) THE contention on behalf of the D. D. A. Is that from the above sequence of facts and dates it is apparent that Shri Subramaniam had not authorised any one to file the award in court. The learned counsel for the petitioner also states that it seems that the D. D. A. is right in contending that Shri Subramaniam had not expressely authorised his Private Assistant or Shri Umesh Prasad Bhakta to file the award and proceedings in court. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in the facts and circumstances of the case the absence of express authority by Mr. Subramaniam to file the award and the proceedings is of no consequence.
( 6 ) THE question for determination is what is the effect of the death of Shri Subramaniam and what is the effect of Shri Subramaniam having not authorised any person to file the award. Before determining this question it may be stated that the D. D. A. has not questioned the authenticity of the award and the proceeding
