Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 570 (DEL)

D. D. A. v. BHAGAT CONSTRUCTION CO. PVT. LTD.

2004-08-04

ANIL KUMAR, VIJENDER JAIN

body2004
JUDGMENT VIJENDER JAIN, J. (ORAL) This appeal has been filed impugning the order passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the petition of the appellant was dismissed on 21.03.2001. Pursuant to an Arbitration clause in the agreement the matter was referred to the Arbitration by appellant and a retired Director General, CPWD was appointed as the Arbitrator. The Arbitrator gave its Award dated 27.11.1990. Mr. Bhuchar, learned counsel for the appellant has limited his argument on the grant of Rs. 3 lakhs 50 thousand under the Claim No. 7 by the Arbitrator. Said finding of the Arbitrator has been approved in the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge. The main argument of learned counsel for the appellant is that the Arbitrator has not given any reason for coming to the conclusion that under Claim No. 7 the appellant was to pay a sum of Rs. 3 lakhs 50 thousand. In nutshell the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is that in the Arbitration clause it was specifically provided that the Arbitrator was to give reasons, non-giving of reasons by the Arbitrator in arriving at the figure of Rs. 3 lakhs 50 thousand has vitiated the Award and, therefore, the finding on that score by the learned Single Judge is to be set aside. We have perused the impugned order. The learned Single Judge has noted that no reason is discernible for arriving at the figure of Rs. 3 lakhs 50 thousand, however, in the impugned order itself the reasons for arriving at such figure by the Arbitrator has been discussed in detail by learned Single Judge. We may also reproduce the Claim No. 7 and how the Arbitrator arrived at the finding and what were the circumstances which led to the said finding : "Claim No. 7 : Claim for Rs. 16,50,000 towards reimbursement of increase in market prices after the stipulated date of completion. The date of start of work was 21.02.1981 and the date of completion as per the agreement was 20.02.1982. According to the claimant the work was completed in January 1984, but according to the respondent the work was never completed. The claimant has claimed damages due to various breaches committed by the respondent. From the hindrance register maintained by the respondent it is seen that there were following hindrance in the work : S. No. Particulars Period of Hindrance 1. The claimant has claimed damages due to various breaches committed by the respondent. From the hindrance register maintained by the respondent it is seen that there were following hindrance in the work : S. No. Particulars Period of Hindrance 1. Non-availability of foundation Drgs. 21.02.1981 to 11.04.1981 2. Decision reg. plinth level 21.02.1981 to 22.05.1981 3. Decision about supply of earth filling 13.05.1981 to 13.08.1981 4. Non-availability of structural Drgs. 16.06.1981 to 15.09.1981 5. Supply of SCI pipes 02.06.1981 to 01.01.1982 6. Rectification of work 13.09.1982 to 18.10.1982 7. Short supply of cement 21.02.1981 to 01.05.1983 8. Development works held up of blocks because of not laying cables by DESU 21.02.1982 to 31.12.1983 There was an initial delay in the supply of the foundation drawings to the claimant on 11.04.1981, but the claimant did not make any arrangement for water till 28.05.1981 and the laving of the lean concrete could be started only from 28.05.1981. This shows that there was delay, partly on account of claimant also due to his not making the necessary arrangements. It is also seen that although there was some delay in issue of the structural drawings, but after the structural drawings were issued, the claimant took considerable time in laying the RCC slabs. Also the general progress of the work was slow and the cement register shows that at no stage there was any shortage of cement. The respondent is responsible for the initial delay in the supply of drawings and other decisions, as indicated in the hindrance register and, therefore, the work could not be completed in the stipulated period. The respondent is not responsible for the full delay as alleged by the claimant and I, therefore, hold that the claimant be paid a sum of Rs. 3,50,000 only on account of the delay by the respondent in giving drawings and decisions." From the above, it would be clear that the Arbitrator who was well versed in the matter before him as a former Director General of CPWD on the basis of his experience took into consideration the various aspects and that is why instead of awarding a sum of Rs. 16 lakhs 50 thousand as claimed by the claimant restricted the said claim to Rs. 3 lakhs 50 thousand. Arbitrator has not to disclose the basis or the mental process for arriving at such figure. 16 lakhs 50 thousand as claimed by the claimant restricted the said claim to Rs. 3 lakhs 50 thousand. Arbitrator has not to disclose the basis or the mental process for arriving at such figure. Even otherwise Arbitrator when called upon to give a reasoned Award is still not required to write a detailed Judgment as the Judges do. It is sufficient that he has indicated his trend and given outline to indicate the basis on which he has arrived at such figure. The learned Single Judge has gone through in details those documents which were produced before the Arbitrator which were the basis of arriving at the said figure in the Award. We find no infirmity in the impugned order. Dismissed.