The Arbitrator's award should not exceed the terms of the contract, and the court has the authority to set aside awards that go beyond the contract terms.

SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner contractor was awarded the work of construction of 590 dwelling units under the SFS Scheme of DDA in Sector C Pocket V, Vasant kunj, New Delhi in pursuance to Agreement No. 7/ee/swd-6/87-88. Some disputes arose between the parties in respect of execution of the work under the agreement and in terms of clause 25 of the General Conditions of Contract, the engineer Member of the DDA vide letter dated 13. 4. 1993 appointed Mr. C. Rama Rao as the Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes between the parties. The sole Arbitrator entered upon reference and made and published the award dated 30. 9. 1995. The respondent DDA aggrieved by the same has filed these objections.

( 2 ) LEARNED counsel for the respondent initially sought to argue the various grounds in the objections but could not seriously dispute the proposition that it is not within the jurisdiction of this court under Section 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as the said act ) to sit as a court of appeal to appraise the facts and evidence on record. It has been repeatedly held by the apex court and by this court that unless the conclusion arrived at by the Arbitrator is perverse, the same ought not to be interfered with. The mere possibility of this court arriving at a different conclusion from that arrived at by the Arbitrator cannot be a ground of interference if the view taken by the Arbitrator is plausible. In this behalf, reference may be made to the judgment of the apex court in M/s Sudarsan Trading Company v. Government of Kerala, AIR 1989 SC 890 and of the Division Bench of this court in DDA v. Bhagat Construction Co. (P) Ltd. and Anr. , 2004 (3) Arb LR 481.

( 3 ) IN view of the aforesaid position, learned counsel for the respondent has confined the submissions in respect of claim No. 1, claim No. 7 and the rate of interest.

( 4 ) THIS claim relates to extra work stated to have been done during the extended period of contract. The claim arises on account of the petitioner s contention that though the work was originally scheduled to be completed within 12 months, the same was prolonged to 30. 5 months time for reasons not attributable to the petitioner. The blame was put on the respondent that the respondent failed to clear the site; there was delay in supply of material; drawings and designs were provided late. There was delay in execution of work by other agencies and decisions were not taken in time; payments were delayed and there was general hindrance of the work. In this behalf, the petitioner relied on various communications. This position was disputed by the respondent who in turn blamed the petitioner. The relevant aspect, however, is that the respondent has stated that clause 10 (CC) of the contract provides for increase in cost of material and that alone can be the formula of grant of the amount.

( 5 ) THE Arbitrator found that though the agreement provided for clause 10 (CC), it does not compensate to the same extent as the increase had taken place and thus awarded a higher amount than provided under clause 10 (CC ). An amount of Rs. 7,36,597/- was awarded against the claim of the petitioner for rs. 30 lakhs. Clause 10 (CC) provides for the methodology to calculate for increase in labour and material rates including for the validly extended period of contract.

( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the respondent submitted that it was not open to the Arbitrator to apply any formula other than as prescribed under clause 10 (CC) in view of the parties having agreed to the same. In this behalf, learned counsel relied upon the Division Bench judgment of this court in Delhi Development Authority v. K. C. Goyal and Co. , 2001 II AD (Delhi) 116. The division Bench held, relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in associated Engineering Company v. Govt. of AP, 1991 (2) Arb LR 180, that once a particular formula is provided in the contract, it is not open to the Arbitrator to award the cl

Click Here to Read the rest of this document