The finality of the arbitrator's decision and the limited jurisdiction of the court in setting aside an award.

Hima Kohli, J.

IA No. 9528/2000 (under Sections 16, 30 & 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 read with Section 151 CPC)

1. The present objections are directed against an award dated 28.7.1999, passed by the Sole Arbitrator in respect of the disputes between the parties.

2. In a nutshell, the facts of the case are that the petitioner claimant entered into an agreement dated 8.6.1990, with the respondent contractor for supply of 8,000 helmet combat fibre glass against work contract dated 27.10.1989. The period for the supply was valid from 20.9.1989 to 19.9.1990. The respondent offered Stores for inspection on 26.7.1990, which were rejected on 21.9.1990. The respondent made a request for extension of time which was acceded to by the petitioner claimant and the time period for delivery was extended, as per the amendment letter dated 22.11.1990. The stores offered on the second occasion were accepted only to the extent of 2130 helmets on 1.2.1991. A second extension was sought by the respondent contractor and the period for delivery was extended upto 31.3.1991.

3. As the respondent contractor failed to supply the balance quantity of stores, the contract was cancelled on 9.5.1991 for the undelivered quantity of 5870 helmets and a notice was issued by the petitioner claimant to the respondent contractor whereby they were informed of the intention of the petitioner claimant to effect the purchase of goods at their risk and cost. It is a matter of record that the respondent did not participate in the tender enquiry and the petitioner claimant proceeded to place orders on the lowest prices offered. After completing the risk purchase of the stores, the petitioner claimant invoked the arbitration clause governing the parties and claimed an amount of Rs. 3,25,753/- from the respondent contractor along with the interest @ 18% p.a. on account of breach of contract committed by the respondent contractor in not supplying the goods agreed to be supplied by them.

4. Thus, three claims were raised by the petitioner claimant before the Sole Arbitrator. The first claim was towards the extra amount spent by the petitioner claimant for a sum of Rs. 3,25,753/- for purchasing 5870 number of helmet combat fibre glass of confirmed specification, the second claim was towards interest claimed by the petitioner claimant @ 18% p.a. from the date of payment till realization and the third claim was towards costs. All the aforesaid claims were rejected by the impugned award passed by the Sole Arbitrator who held that claim No. 1 was liable to be rejected on the ground that there was deviation in the risk purchase contract as against the contract of the respondent contractor. In view of the fact that claim No. 1 was rejected, as a consequence thereto, claims No. 2 and 3 were also rejected.

5. The respondent contractor had on its part, raised three counter claims against the petitioner claimant. The first counter claim was on account of the withheld amount in the other bills and certain sums deducted by the UOI. The said counter claim was allowed to the extent of any amount withheld by the UOI. The second counter claim towards payment of interest @ 18% p.a. from the due date to date of actual realization was disallowed by the sole Arbitrator. The third counter claim for cost was also disallowed. Aggrieved by the aforementioned award, the petitioner claimant has filed the present application.

6. Counsel for the petitioner claimant has confined his submissions only to one ground which is that the impugned award does not specify as to which were the deviations of the risk purchase contract. He states that the award is not reasoned inasmuch as no reasons have been given by the learned Arbitrator while rejecting claim No. 1. He emphasizes that there is absolutely no deviation in the risk purchase contract and merely because the goods were inspected by the petitioner claimant at Kanpur instead of Delhi, cannot be such a major deviation, as to reject claim No. 1 r