SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1984 Supreme(Online)(Del) 9

DELHI HIGH COURT
D.K. Kapur, J
Om Prakash Baldev Krishan (M/s.) New Delhi v. Union of India and Another
F.A.O.(O.S.) No. 14 of 1980 | F.A.O.(O.S.) No. 32 of 1980



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: D. K. Kapur
For the Respondents: None mentioned

The court clarified that arbitrators must adhere to contract terms and jurisdictions, emphasizing contractual intentions while affirming the non-speaking nature of specific awards.

Headnote:(A) Arbitration Act, 1940 - Sections 30 and 33 - Dispute between contractor and Union regarding arbitration award - Award held not to be a speaking award; arbitrator's jurisdiction validly exercised despite contentions of misconduct. (Paras 8, 9, 10, 23, 25)

(B) Contract Law - Clauses of contract interpreted; parties' intentions in arbitration agreements critically assessed; exclusion clauses relevant for assessment of compensation claims. (Paras 12, 14, 18)

Facts of the case:
Cross-appeals arise from a single Judge's decision regarding the validity of an arbitration award made in connection with a government contract. Disputes arose over claims for compensation linked to contractor operations under specific contract terms regarding suspension of work and wage disputes.

Findings of Court:
Award made by arbitrator upheld for claims 1 and 2 but set aside for claims 13 and 14; overall, the contractor's claims were not actionable per contract terms. Court retained the bulk of the award but denied compensation for disputes outside arbitration scope.

Issues: Key issues included jurisdiction of the arbitrator vs. exclusion clauses within the contract, misinterpretation of contract terms, and validity of claims during arbitration.

Ratio Decidendi: Court found that arbitrator exercised jurisdiction appropriately despite objections raised by the Union; the terms and conditions of the contract significantly guided the interpretation of claims. The decision aligns with precedent in determining finality of arbitration awards.

Result: Appeals dismissed.

Table of Content
1. cross-appeals result from disputes in government contract execution. (Para 1 , 3)
2. arbitration results are contested; certain claims outside arbitration scope. (Para 4 , 6 , 8)
3. criteria for setting aside arbitration awards discussed. (Para 9 , 10)
4. contracts provide latitude for arbitrators yet limit claims against specific terms. (Para 11 , 12 , 20)

1. These two cross - appeals (F. A. O.(O.S.) ) No. 14 of 1980 and F.A.O.(O.S.) No. 32 of 1980 arise out of the judgment of a learned single Judge dated November 20, 1979.

2. Messrs Om Parkash Baldev Krishan (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Contractor') submitted a tender for "Provision of Married Accommodation for CPL's / AC's Flt. Sgt. / MWO's / WO's / Near Delhi. The tender was accepted and the work was awarded to the contractor by the Union of India vide agreement number CEDZ - 8 of 1972-73, dated August 21, 73. Clauses 9,26,62 (G) and 70 of the General Conditions of Contract and Clause 3.1 of the Special Conditions of Contract, which are relevant for the decision of these appeals, read as under: -
"9. Suspension of Work - The Contractor shall suspend execution of the Works or any part or parts thereof, whenever called upon in writing by the Garrison Engineer to do so, and shall not resume work thereon until so directed in writing by the Garrison Engineer. The Contractor will be allowed by the G. E. an extension of time (not less than the period of suspension) for completion of the item or group of items of work for which a separate period of completion is given in the contract and of which the suspended work forms part but no other claim in this respect for compensation or otherwise, howsoever shall be admitted". "26. Labour - The contractor shall employ labour in sufficient number to maintain the required rate of progress and of quality to ensure workmanship of the degree required by the Specifications and to the satisfaction of the Engineer - in - Charge.
The Contractor shall remain liable for the payment of all wages or other moneys to his work - people or employees under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, Minimum Wages Act, 1948. Employers' Liability Act, 1938, Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, or any other Act or enactments relating thereto and rules framed thereunder from time to time. The Contractor shall work only on and during the hours of a working day unless he obtains the prior written approval of the Engineer - in - charge to do otherwise. If such approval is given no liability in respect of any excess cost arising therefrom shall be incurred by Government.
 xxxx xxxx xxxx
"62 (G). If any work, the rate for which cannot be obtained by any of the methods referred to in paras (A) to (E) above, has been ordered on the Contractor, the rate shall be decided by the G.E. on the basis of the cost to the Contractor at site of Works plus 10% to cover all overheads, and profit. Provided that if the Contractor is not satisfied with the decision of the G. E., he shall be entitled to represent the matter to the C.W.E within seven days of receipt of the G.E.'s decision and the decision of the C.W.E. thereon shall be final and binding".
"70. All disputes, between the parties to the contract (other than those for which the decision of the C.W.E. or any other person is by the Contract expressed to be final and binding) shall, after written notice by either party to the Contract to the other of them, be referred to the sole arbitration of an Engineer Officer to be appointed by the authority mentioned in the tender documents."
"3.1. The contractor shall have no claim whatsoever, if on account of any local regulations or otherwise he is required to pay wages in excess of the fair wages shown in the Schedule of Fair Wages."






3. Certain disputes and difference arose between parties. Contractor raised several claims. This included the following four claims: -
"1. Reimbursement / compensation for infructuous expenditure incurred on account of enforced idleness of staff, shut







































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top