Skip to content


Mohd. Rafi Vs. Union of India - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectArbitration
CourtDelhi High Court
Decided On
Case NumberSuit No. 685 of 1985
Judge
Reported in1995IIIAD(Delhi)429; 1995(2)ARBLR217(Delhi); 59(1995)DLT413
ActsArbitration Act, 1940 - Sections 30
AppellantMohd. Rafi
RespondentUnion of India
Advocates: Sanjay Goswami and; E.S. Uazirani, Advs
Excerpt:
- - c-3 and he has complained against the claimant for having not furnished details and as per the final bill, full payment was made for execution of 3389 cums of earth. c-4. during the course of the argument, the respondent has simply blamed the claimant for having not furnished details and the respondent has not clearly stated that the claim is completely devoid of merits. arbitrator has the jurisdiction to decide both questions of facts as well as law referred to him......this respect by the ministry of works and housing. it appears that learned arbitrator treated the extra work as done under clause (5) and allowed the contractor at the market rate. in doing so, the learned arbitrator has misconducted himself and has travelled outside the scope of the agreement and the award in respect of claim no. 7 is not valid and needs to be quashed.' (3) on reading of the award, i find that while dealing with claim no. 7, learned arbitrator has held as under :- 'it has been stated by the learned consultant for the claimant that in exh.c 3, executive engineer had called upon the claimant that after completion of temporary diversion approach road 10.5 metres width on delhi side is also to be made on the existing burari road which will be in the central line with the.....
Judgment:

S.K. Mahajan, J.

(1) Under the agreement for construction of By-pass to N.H.I in the reach Burari Road to Jahangirpuri,S.H. balance earth work from C.H. 3500 to 4500 M, awarded to the petitioner, certain disputes had arisen between the parties and they in terms of the agreement were referred for arbitration to Shri Ch. Prabhakar Rao, the Arbitrator, respondent No. 2. Before the Arbitrator, the petitioner had preferred 13 claims claiming a total sum of Rs. 1,14,15,379.28 paise from the respondent No. 1 allegedly due to him under the contract. Reply to the statement of claim was filed by the respondent and respondent had also preferred certain counter claims. After hearing the parties, the Arbitrator made and published his award on 29.2.1984. By way of the said award, the Arbitrator rejected all the claims of the petitioner except claim No. 7. Counter claims of the respondent were also disallowed. Under claim No. 7, the Arbitrator allowed a sum of Rs. 14,100.94 paise in favor of the petitioner against a total claim of Rs. 4,40,000.00 . On filing the said award in Court, notice was given to the parties. Respondent No. 1 has filed its objections to the claim. Reply to the objections was filed by the petitioner and the following issues were framed :-

1. Whether award is liable to be set aside on the objections of respondent No. 1? 2. Relief.

(2) The objection of Union of India to the award of a sum of Rs. 14,100.94 against claim No. 7 was that 'according to the terms and conditions of the agreement the contractor was entitled for payment under Clause 12(1) of the agreement and he was paid at that rate by the department which was accepted by him at the stage of final bill. Nothing remains to be paid in this respect by the Ministry of Works and Housing. It appears that learned Arbitrator treated the extra work as done under clause (5) and allowed the contractor at the market rate. In doing so, the learned Arbitrator has misconducted himself and has travelled outside the scope of the agreement and the award in respect of claim No. 7 is not valid and needs to be quashed.'

(3) On reading of the award, I find that while dealing with claim No. 7, learned Arbitrator has held as under :-

'IT has been stated by the learned Consultant for the claimant that in Exh.C 3, Executive Engineer had called upon the claimant that after completion of temporary diversion approach road 10.5 metres width on Delhi side is also to be made on the existing Burari road which will be in the central line with the bridge being constructed by the flood control Deptt. and in reply thereof, the claimant had made it clear that the diversion approach road was not contemplated by the Agreement. As such, he would charge @ Rs. 22.00 per cum. In the said letter, the claimant had shown the figure of Rs. 8,00,000.00 and the claimant had further relied on Exh.C-51 in which there was admission with regard to the existence of Burariroad. As such, the claim was made @ Rs. 22/ - per cum. During the course of the agreement, the learned Consultant had stated that there was difference of rate between the Deptt. and the claimant to the extent of Rs. 14,100.94 which may be allowed. Whereas, the Executive Engineer had admitted about Exh.C-3 and he has complained against the claimant for having not furnished details and as per the final bill, full payment was made for execution of 3389 cums of earth. In measurements and the amounts, as such, nothing is due to the claimant. This is a case wherein the Deptt. has insisted in Exh.C-3 for execution of additional work and the claimant had executed the same in accordance with the instructions given by the Deptt. and made extra claim in Exh.C-4. During the course of the argument, the respondent has simply blamed the claimant for having not furnished details and the respondent has not clearly stated that the claim is completely devoid of merits. However, the consultant for the claimant had come with a version that difference exists to the extent of Rs. 14,100.94 between the parties. In view of the same, I am inclined to accept the version to the extent of Rs. 14,100.94 which is allowed.'

(4) I have heard the Counsel for the parties and also perused the award.

(5) The only argument advanced by the Counsel for the Objector is that the Arbitrator has misconducted himself by treating the work as extra work under Clause 12 (5), whereas the same should have been considered as work under clause 12 (1) for which the petitioner had already been paid. The Arbitrator in his award has held that in this case, the Department had insisted for execution of additional work and the petitioner had executed the same in accordance with the instructions given by the Department. The only argument advanced before the Arbitrator by Union of India was that the petitioner had not furnished details of such extra work done and the Arbitrator, thereforee, after hearing the parties, the parties had allowed this claim to the extent of Rs. 14,100.94 paise.

(6) The scope of the Court while appreciating an award given by the Arbitrator is very limited. The Arbitrator is made the final arbiter of the disputes between the parties. Arbitrator has the jurisdiction to decide both questions of facts as well as law referred to him. It is not a case of the Objector that there was no evidence at all before the Arbitrator to reach the conclusions that the work, for which the aforesaid claim No. 7 had been made by the petitioner, was not extra work under the contract. On the basis of the material before him, once the Arbitrator had concluded that the work undertaken by the petitioner for which the claim had been made was an extra work, it will be very difficult for the Court to set aside the said findings on the ground that the same are erroneous. Even if the Arbitrator has reached a wrong conclusion, the award is not open to challenge and cannot be set aside. It is not open to the Court to re-assess evidence or to sit as a Court of appeal over the findings of the Arbitrator to find out as to why the Arbitrator had arrived at the findings. The Court is not to re-assess evidence to find out if the Arbitrator has committed any error. It is not open to the Court to try to prove the mental process by which the Arbitrator has reached his conclusions. Unless there is an error apparent on the face of the award, the award is not liable to be set aside. It has not even been argued by the Counsel for the Objector that there was any error apparent on the face of the award which could make the award liable to be set aside.

(7) In the circumstances, I find that there are no merits in this petition under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act for setting aside the award. The petition is, thereforee, dismissed. The award is made a rule of Court. A decree in terms of the award be passed. The petitioner will be entitled to interest at the rate of 9 per cent p.a. from the date of filing of the award till the date of the decree. The petitioner will also be entitled to interest on the decretal amount from the date of passing of the decree till the date of realisation at the rate of 9 per cent per annum. Parties arc left to bear their own costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //