S. N. Sapra ( 1 ) M/s Krishna Construction Company, present petitioners, were awarded the work for construction of 200 Dwelling units at Phase II, Asian Games Village Complex, Siri Fort Area, New Delhi vide letter of award dated October 27, 1980 for an amount of Rs. 2,49,47. 589 by Delhi Development Authority, respondent. A contract agreement No. 3/ee/agdii/80-81 was duly executed between the parties thereby incorporating the terms and conditions with regard to the work. ( 2 ) UNDER the Agreement, the work was to start on November 6, 1980 and was to be completed within a period of 9 months i. e. on or before August 5, 1981. The work was to be executed on crash basis in view of the impending Asian Games. It is alleged by petitioners that the work was executed under trying conditions as respondent kept on changing the original specifications, designs, materials to be used. Thereafter, various disputes arose between the parties. The agreement contained an arbitration clause. Shri H. D. Kochhar, Supdt. Engineer was appointed as the sole arbitrator under Clause 25 of the Agreement vide letter dated July 20, 1982 by Engineer Member of respondent DDA. He entered upon the reference on January 3, 1983 and conducted the arbitration proceedings till May 20, 1983. Shri Kochhar retired from the services of respondent. Another arbitrator, namely, Mr. G. S. Subramanyam was sought to be appointed in his place. Petitioners being aggrieved, filed a petition being OMP No. 94 of 1983 under Section 33 of Arbitration Act, 1940 in the High Court of Delhi thereby challenging the appointment of the new arbitrator. It appears that this petition was contested by respondent DDA. However, vide order passed on November 13, 1984, by this Court - - Sbri D. P. Goyal was appointed as the sole arbitrator. He entered upon reference on March 29, 1985. ( 3 ) PETITIONERS filed their statement of claims thereby claiming various amounts. Petitioner s claims are as under : "claim No. 1 : Grit wash plaster of different mixes-dispute over rates sanctioned. Amount claimed Rs. 19. 00 lacs. Claim No. 2 : Pressed steel door frames and mullions-dispute over rates. Claims Rs. 2. 50 lacs. Claim No. 3 : Pressed steel window frames-dispute over rates claim Rs. 7. 00 lacs. Claim No. 4 : Steel windows, shutters, glazed, louvered, wire gauged and fixed portion Rs. 6. 00 lacs. Amount claimed Rs. 19. 00 lacs. Claim No. 2 : Pressed steel door frames and mullions-dispute over rates. Claims Rs. 2. 50 lacs. Claim No. 3 : Pressed steel window frames-dispute over rates claim Rs. 7. 00 lacs. Claim No. 4 : Steel windows, shutters, glazed, louvered, wire gauged and fixed portion Rs. 6. 00 lacs. Claim No. 5 : Compound gates : Claim Rs. 0. 20 lacs". Respondent DDA filed counter statement of claims. In brief these counter claims are as under. "counter Claim No. 1 : Respondents claimed tentative amount of Rs. 4,40,000. 00 on account of final bill (in minus) which is yet to be finalised. (a) Recovery of Rs. 73,630. 00 on account of minus bill. (b) Recovery of income tax : Rs. 4714. 00. (c) Recovery of cement : Rs. 8320. 00. (d) Penal rates recovery of cement: Rs. 1,20,400. 00. (e) Penal rate recovery for Tor Steel : Rs. 74,626. 00. (f) Penal rate recovery for Mild Steel Rs. 22,197. 00. (g) Penal rate recovery for C. I. Pipes : Rs. 8,925. 00. (b) Penal rate recovery for SCI Pipes : Rs. 19,646. 00. (i) Recovery for rebate for the final bill : Rs. 25,000. 00. (j) Recovery on account of the work executed at risk and costs Shaft covers : Rs. 73,265. 00. (k) Recovery on account of work done at risk and cost-for cleaning snowcem spots etc. Rs. 4,588. 00. Claim No. 6 of the claimants and pendentelite interest. Additional Claim of the respondents Both the parties led documentary evidence before the arbitrator. The arbitrator made and published his award on January 25, 1987. ( 4 ) THE learned arbitrator awarded a sum of Rs. 11,12,995. 00 to petitioners against claim No. 1, Rs. 1,64,292. 00 against claim No. 2, Rs. 1,72,596. 00 against claim No. 3. Rs. 5,60,605. 00 against claim No. 4 and rejected claim No. 5. ( 5 ) THE award was filed in Court. Respondent has filed objectioni against the award under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. It is alleged by respondent DDA in the objections that findings of the arbitrator are contrary to law and facts of the case and there are errors of judgment apparent on the face of the award. Respondent has filed objectioni against the award under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. It is alleged by respondent DDA in the objections that findings of the arbitrator are contrary to law and facts of the case and there are errors of judgment apparent on the face of the award. It has been further alleged by respondent DDA that under the arbitration clause, the arbitrator was required to give reasons but the arbitrator has not given the reasons and in the award only conclusions have been given. As such arbitrator has misconducted the arbitration proceedings. ( 6 ) PETITIONER filed reply to the objections. On the pleadings of the parties following issues have been framed : 1. Whether the award is liable to be set aside ? 2. Relief. ( 7 ) LEARNED counsel for parties however, agreed that the arbitration record and respective pleadings of the parties supported by their affidavits be read in evidence. ( 8 ) SHRI Harish Malhotra learned counsel for respondent DDA in the first place contends that arbitrator has not given any reason in support of his findings as given in the award. The arbitrator has merely given his conclusions and verdict without giving any reason for the same. The arbitrator has not stated as to how he has reached the figures under various claims, which have been awarded by him in favour of petitioners. There is no material on record to support the verdict of the arbitrator. Under the arbitration clause, arbitrator was required to give reasons for his findings and as no reasons have been given so the arbitrator has misconducted himself and the arbitration proceedings. Mr. Malhotra further urges that there is an error apparent on the face of the award because the arbitrator has erred in holding that thickness of less than 18 mm in the upper layer of plaster was not practical and finding that 10 mm nominal size grit would contain aggregates of size upto 15 mm when a sieve of 10 mm was employed, was contrary to CPWD specifications. ( 9 ) IN the second place, Mr. Malhotra urges that the arbitrator has misconducted the arbitration proceedings as he has not correctly interpreted and construed the provisions of Clause 12 (ii) and Clause 12 (iv) of the Agreement. According to him, the arbitrator has erred in fixing the rates under Clause 12 (iv ). ( 9 ) IN the second place, Mr. Malhotra urges that the arbitrator has misconducted the arbitration proceedings as he has not correctly interpreted and construed the provisions of Clause 12 (ii) and Clause 12 (iv) of the Agreement. According to him, the arbitrator has erred in fixing the rates under Clause 12 (iv ). According to him, the rates could be derived under Clause 12 (ii) as this was the only clause which was applicable to the present case. Reliance has been placed on the judgment in College of Vocational Studies v. S. S. Jaitley1. ( 10 ) MR. Manmohan Sareen learned counsel for petitioners in reply contends that petitioners were subjected to substantial loss. The disputes involved between the parties are essentially of technical nature. The arbitrator is a qualified Engineer with vast experience and he held a number of hearings and gave full opportunity to both the parties to put forward their poincs of view and produce oral as well as documentary evidence. The disputes as raised by petitioners, related to assessment of the work involved in executing the various contract items, additions, substitutions thereof. Each party, he submits, gave their detailed analysis of various components/elements of items of works and cost of material and labour involved. He urges thatthe arbitrator had discussed in detail with both the parties, their respective analysis, admissibility of various factors, reasonableness of labour-cum-man hours claimed as per actual observations of the parties at site. He submits that in the award given by the arbitrator in respect of the items either of the claims made by petitioners or the counter claims put forward by respondent reasons have been given. According to him, that investigation into the objections filed by respondent will Involve re-appraisal and re-examination of the evidence and/or conclusions reached by the learned arbitrator on matters of fact. The objections raised did not disclose any error apparent on the face of the award. The arbitrator has given his reasons for his findings and has also clearly indicated his thought process and the various factors which he was considering while making the award. The law is that arbitrator is not required to give any airthemetical computation. Mr. Sareen further contends that the arbitrator has rightly computed the rates under Clause 12 (iv ). According to him, the agreement items as originally provided were found totally unworkable. The law is that arbitrator is not required to give any airthemetical computation. Mr. Sareen further contends that the arbitrator has rightly computed the rates under Clause 12 (iv ). According to him, the agreement items as originally provided were found totally unworkable. The specifications were totally altered and new features were added. Accordingly, for the substituted items there was no rate available in the contract. The Delhi Schedule of rates also did not contain the rates for the substituted item. Accordingly, the arbitrator was justified in determining the rates under Clause 12 (iv) on actual basis. The decision of the arbitrator regarding the scope or otherwise of clause 12 (ii) or 12 (iv) cannot be assailed in these proceedings, as the arbitrator was the final Judge on this. Reliance has been placed on judgments in Sm (. Santa Sila Devi and another v, Dhirendra Nath Sen and others. ^ Delhi Development Authority, New Delhi v. Mjs Alkaram, New Delhi9 Delhi Development Authority v. Mis Uppal Engineering Construction Co. New Delhi* M/s Krishan Kumar Madhok v. Union of India, Mfs A. T. Brij Paul Singh and Bros. v. State of Gujarat, Sanyukt Nirmata v. Delhi Development Authority and another, Villayafi Ram Mittal, Govt. Contractor v. The Union of India and others,6 Sankari Prasad Kundu v. The Union af India and others9 Russel on Arbitration Twentieth Edn. , (Page 419 and 421) M/s Hindustan Tea Co. v. Mis K. Sashikant and Co. and another,10 Puri Construction (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India and another, Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Mis Jagan Nath Ashok Kumar and another, Mis United Trading Construction Co. v. Delhi Development Authority and other,13 decided by S. Ranganathan, J. of this Court. ( 11 ) IN College of Vocational Studies, (supra) the Division Bench of this Court was considering a question whether the arbitrator bad given reasons for his award or not. It has been held as under : "there are limits for judicial reviewability and the Courts exercise limited jurisdiction in the proceedings for setting aside an award under section 30 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. 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 reappraise and re-examine the evidence led before the arbitrator. 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 reappraise and re-examine the evidence led before the arbitrator. Unless it is specifically agreed between the parties by means of an arbitration agreement, the arbitrator is not bound to give reasons for his verdict, in other words, the arbitrator can give a non-speaking award unless he is required by means of an agreement or terms of reference to give reasons for his award. The Courts also cannot look into the insufficiency of the evidence led before the arbitrator. When the arbitrator is required to give reasons, it is not for the Courts to see the reasonableness of the reasons given by the arbitrator or sufficiency of the reasons. However, what reasons are required, it depends upon the facts of each case. Misconduct under Section 30 (a) of the Arbitration Act does not mean only a moral lapse but it comprises legal misconduct which is complete, if the arbitrator on the face of the award arrives at an inconsistent conclusion even on his own findings or arrives at a decision by ignoring material documents which throw abundant light on the controversy between the pariies and can help in arriving at a just and fair decision. An error of law on the face of the award does not mean an error found in the arbitration proceedings or the documents submitted by the parties or the evidence led by the parties before the arbitrator. An error of law on the face of the award means what the court can find in the award or a document, actually incorporated or annexed thereto. As stated above, the court cannot sit in appeal to reexamine and re-appraise the evidence considered by the arbitrator and once a statement or part of the statement given by a witness before the arbitrator has been believed or disbelieved by the arbitrator, it is not open for the Court, in the proceedings for setting aside the award, to re-examine such part of evidence and arrive at a different conclusion than what the arbitrator had arrived at. Where under an agreement the arbitrator is required to give reasons for his award, he is not required to give a detailed judgment or detailed reasons. By reasons it means that the award should be speaking one. Where under an agreement the arbitrator is required to give reasons for his award, he is not required to give a detailed judgment or detailed reasons. By reasons it means that the award should be speaking one. In the reasoned award what is expected from the arbitrator is that he should indicate his mind whereby it can be ascertained as to how he has arrived at a particular conclusion. In case of reasoned award, the arbitrator is required to indicate the trend of his thought process but not his mental meanderings, the purpose of commercial arbitration, being speedy certainly and a cheaper remedy. When the finding of the arbitrator is based on no evidence, then certainly the Court can go into such finding and set aside such an award as being perverse. The arbitrator is entitled to decide rightly or wrongly but if an error of law appears on the face of the award, then the Court can interfere and set aside the award. "it has been further held that reasons are the links on the material, documentary or oral evidence, adduced before the arbitrator on which certain inferences are drawn and conclusions are made. There must be some rational nexus between the two indicated in the award. What reasons are required it depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. ( 12 ) IN Delhi Development Authority, New Delhi, (supra) Avadh Behari Rohatgi, J. has observed that the reasons are not deficient merely because every process of reasoning is not set out. The reasons are not insufficient merely because they fail to deal with every point raised before the arbitrator at the hearing. No universal generalisation can be made. Everything depends upon the subject matter. Lella Seth, J. has also observed in this case that it is sufficient if the arbitrator indicates the trend of his thought process, so that errors can be eliminated and arbitrariness avoided. But the arbitrator is not required to give a detailed judgment. The Court s function remains restricted. It does not permit reviewability of the reason, nor a combing through as an appellate forum would be advised to do, as this would amount to an impeachment of the award which is not permissible. But the arbitrator is not required to give a detailed judgment. The Court s function remains restricted. It does not permit reviewability of the reason, nor a combing through as an appellate forum would be advised to do, as this would amount to an impeachment of the award which is not permissible. ( 13 ) IN Municipal Corporation of Delhi, (supra) their Lordships of the Supreme Court held that the reasons given by the arbitrator were cogent and based on materials on record. The arbitrator did give reasons in support of the award. It has been further held that there was no violation of any principles of natural justices, nor it was a case where the arbitrator has refused cogent and material factors to be taken into consideration. The parties have selected their own forum and the deciding forum must be conceded the power of appraisement of evidence. It has been--held that the arbitrator is the sole Judge of the award as well as quantity of evidence and it will not for the Court to take upon itself the task of being a Judge of the evidence beforethe arbitrator. It may be possible that on the same evidence the Court might have arrived at a different conclusion than the one arrived at by the arbitrator but that by itself is no ground for setting aside the award of an arbitrator. It has been further held as under : "it is familiar learning but requires emphasis that section 1 of the Evidence Act, 1872 in its rigour is not intended to apply to proceedings before an arbitrator. Mukharji, J. as the learned Chief Justice then was, expressed the above view in Haji Ebrahim Kassam Cochinwall v. Northern Indian Oil Industries Ltd. 111, and we are of the opinion that this represents the correct statement of law on this aspect. Lord Goddard, C. J. in Mediteranean and Eastern Export Co. Ltd. v. Fortress Fabrics Ltd. ,16 observed at pages 188/189 of the report, as follows ; A man in the trade who is selected for his experience would be likely to know and indeed to be expected to know the fluctuations of the market and would have plenty of means of informing himself or refreshing his memory on any point on which he might find it necesserv so to do. In this case according to the affidavit of sellers they did take the point before the Arbitrator that the Southern African market has slumped. Whether the buyers contested that statement does not appear but an experienced Arbitrator would know or have the means of knowing whether that was so or not and to what extent and I see no reason why in principle he should be required to have evidence on this point any more than on any other question relating to a particular trade. It must be taken I think that in fixing the amount that he has, he has acted on his own knowledge and experience. The day has long gone by when the Courts looked with jealousy on the jurisdiction of the Arbitrators. The modern tendency is in my opinion more especially in commercial arbitrations, to endeavour to uphold awards of the skilled persons that the parties themselves have selected to decide the questions at issue between them. If an Arbitrator has acted within the terms of his submission and has not violated any rules of what is so often called natural justice the Courts should be slow indeed to set aside his award. This in our opinion is an appropriate attitude. " ( 14 ) IN M/s Hindustan Tea Co. , (supra) their Lordships were considering the scope of Section 30 of Arbitration Act, 1940. It has been held as under :- "the Award is reasoned one. The objections which have been raised against the award are such that they cannot indeed be taken into consideration within the limited ambit of challenge admissible under the scheme of the Arbitration Act. Under the law, the Arbitrator is made the final arbiter of the dispute between the parties. The award is not open to challenge on the ground that the Arbitrator has reached a wrong conclusion or has failed to appreciate facts. Strong reliance was placed by the appellant s learned counsel on an old Madras decision in Yogambal Boyee Amman i Ammal v. Naina Piliai Markayar16. In our view, on the facts of this case challenge to the award is not permissible by taking the stand that the arbitrator acted contrary to the provisions of Section 70 of the Contract Act. In these premises the objection filed to the award has to be rejected. We direct the award to be made a rule of the Court. In our view, on the facts of this case challenge to the award is not permissible by taking the stand that the arbitrator acted contrary to the provisions of Section 70 of the Contract Act. In these premises the objection filed to the award has to be rejected. We direct the award to be made a rule of the Court. The parties shall bear their own costs throughout". ( 15 ) AFTER discussing the law in brief, it will be appropriate to deal nth the submissions of learned counsel for parties in relation to each Aim. Claim No. 1 : Claim No. 1 deals with an item for grit wash plaster. Item No. 10. 6 of the Agreement reads as under : "22 mm thick grit washed plaster with an underlayer of 12 mm thick plaster 1 :5 (1 cement : 5 coarse sand and top layer of 10 mm thick cement concrete 1:1:3 (1 cement ; 1 coarse sand : 3 stone grit upto 10 mm nominal size), finally washed with wire brushes. "it is an admitted case of the parties that item as mentioned above was found nworkable on the specifications and was not acted upon. Respondent itself changed the item and specifications. The new item to be executed was as under "27 mm thick grit wash plaster with an under-layer of 12 mm thick plaster 1:4 (1 cement : 4 coarse sand) and top layer of grit wash plaster with 1 : 1. 5 mix (I cement : 1. 5 Gurukul Grit 10 mm nominal size) and extra operation of applying cement paste on under-layer etc. and providing grooves in grit wash plaster of size 20x15x15 mm and 15x15x12 mm by using Tropezoidal woodern fillets". It is thus clear that not only the specifications with regard to the proportion of cement and coarse sand and size of the grit were changed but thickness of plaster was also changed. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that respondent required provision of grooves of different sizes to be made in grit wash plaster. The petitioner s case is that the substituted item was altogether a different one involving various additional steps and a substantially higher incidence of labour, utilisation of material of different sizes etc. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that respondent required provision of grooves of different sizes to be made in grit wash plaster. The petitioner s case is that the substituted item was altogether a different one involving various additional steps and a substantially higher incidence of labour, utilisation of material of different sizes etc. On the other hand learned counsel for respondent contends that the arbitrator has fallen into an error by deciding that for obtaining 15 mm grooves the top layer could not be less than a thickness of 18 mm. The first point which arises for consideration is whether the arbitrator has given reasons for awarding a sum of Rs. 11,12,995. 00 in favour of petitioners against claim No. 1. The arbitrator has clearly stated in the award while deciding claim No. 1, that the item in the contract was found not feasible at site on the specifications given and the new item was substituted after experimentation at site. Petitioners were asked to execute the grit wash plaster consisting of underlayer of 12 mm in cement mortar 1 : 4 with topping layer providing 15 mm grooves, using 15 mm fillets. respondent agreed that this item was not workable. The joint samples were taken and thickness recorded by both the parties was also taken. The average thickness of topping layer was found more than 18 mm. The arbitrator has given reasons for holding that thickness of less than 18 mm in the upper layer of plaster was not practicable. This Court is not sitting, as a Court of appeal and the findings of the arbitrator are based on evidence on the record and more particularly upon joint measurements the average was taken by the arbitrator. The arbitrator has also stateed that theoretically the fillets have to run over the protrusions of the roughened surface andunevennesses within the tolerance of the under layer. Further with 15 mm grooves and 10 mm nominal size grit which could not contain the chips upto 15 mm size, a thickness of less than 18 mm is not practicable. The wastage as always provided in various types of plasters and other external finishes have to be provided for. The arbitrator has also mentioned in the award that petitioners could not establish the usage of sona grit. Only Delhi quartezite grit was to be considered for analysis. The wastage as always provided in various types of plasters and other external finishes have to be provided for. The arbitrator has also mentioned in the award that petitioners could not establish the usage of sona grit. Only Delhi quartezite grit was to be considered for analysis. Special scaffold is necessary for such a superior exterior finish. The basis of assessment of cement consumption as adopted by the respondent was found in order except for corrections required for thickness and wastage. As per the original agreement the arbitrator has given reasons that no groves were provided. Grooves of sizes 20x15x15 mm and 15x12x 15 mm have been provided as directed by respondent petitioners have given details with regard to claim No. 1 in the statement of claim thereby showing the varioas factors and also the rates on the basis of which the amount under claim No. 1 was claimed by petitioners. The arbitrator has also considered the clauses 12 (ii) and 12 (iv) of the contract. The arbitrator has held that the rates of new item have to be derived abinitio from clause 12 (iv) of the contract on actual basis as no such item was available in DSR-77 applicable to the contract. This Court cannot interfere with the findings of the arbitrator. More so when the arbitrator has rightly held that the rates for the new item were to be derived from clause 12 (iv) of the Contract and not from clause 12 (ii ). I am of the view that the arbitrator has given reasons for his findings on claim No. 1. He was a technical man and the nature of the work was technical one. Moreover, there is no error apparent on the face of the award. Claim No. 2 Petitioners have claimed Rs. 2. 50 lacs. The arbitrator has clearly mentioned that during arguments petitioners while accepting the quantity as recorded by respondent DDA and basing on the rates sanctioned by respon- dent DDA modified their claim to Rs. 2,50,312. 76. The original contract provided for teak wood frames but the same was substituted by pressed steel frames at a later date at the instructions of the Delhi Development Authority when the construction of blocks had proceeded ahead. The sample as approved by respondent was taken up for fabrication by petitioners. The pressed steel frame was available in DSR-77 for sheet thickness of 1. The sample as approved by respondent was taken up for fabrication by petitioners. The pressed steel frame was available in DSR-77 for sheet thickness of 1. 25 mm and the rate for the item executed by petitioners with 1. 6 mm thickness is thus derivable under clause 12 (iv) of the contract with the modification of girth and thickness of sheet, welding of lugs and the requirement of fixing of frames after cutting the chassis in masonry work and arrangement for hinges. The arbitrator has given cogent reasons for partly allowing claim No. 2 and this finding is based on the documents on record. Claim No. S The arbitrator has given reasons for holding that the rates for pressed steel frames for windows have to be derived under clause 12 (iv) for a value of work upto Rs. 4,80,213. 00. Beyond this, the rates of pressed steel frames were derived under Clause 12 A. For this cogent reasons have been given by the arbitrator. Claim No. 4 While allowing partly claim No. 4, learned arbitrator examined the malysis and market rates given by both the parties. The mode of measure- ment as adopted by respondent was accepted and the rates were worked out oathat basis. The reasons have been given by the arbitrator. ( 16 ) WHILE dealing with the counter claims of respondent the arbitrator las given reasons. ( 17 ) IN view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, the objections filed by respondent are dismissed. Award dated January 25, 1987 imade Rule of the Court and decree in terms of the award is passed. Award itall form part of the decree. In case respondent fails to pay the decretal iinount within two months the petitioners shall be entitled for future interest it 12 per cent per annum from today.