1996 (8) TMI 570 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
1. Application under sections 14, 17, and 29 of the Arbitration Act for making the arbitrator's award a rule of the court.
2. Objections filed by the first respondent for setting aside the award.
3. Legal infirmities in the award related to specific claims.
4. Challenge to the award on claims No. 8 and 9.
5. Justification of clubbing claims No. 8 and 9 together in the award.
6. Reasoning behind the award of Rs.50,000 for claims No. 8 and 9.
7. Legal principles governing awarding of damages for delayed work.
8. Adequacy of reasons provided by the arbitrator in the award.

Analysis:

1. The petitioner sought to make the arbitrator's award a rule of the court under sections 14, 17, and 29 of the Arbitration Act. The first respondent filed objections to set aside the award, raising concerns about legal infirmities in specific claims.

2. The first respondent contended that the arbitrator erred in awarding damages beyond the terms of the agreement for claims No. 8 and 9. The arbitrator was accused of not providing adequate reasons for awarding Rs.50,000 for these claims.

3. The court noted that the arbitrator's role is to assess evidence and the legality of the award, not its merits. The objections regarding claims No. 2, 3, 4, 7, and 11 were dismissed as the arbitrator did not exceed the agreement terms in these claims.

4. Regarding claims No. 8 and 9, the first respondent argued against clubbing them together and the lack of reasoning behind the Rs.50,000 award. However, the arbitrator's detailed consideration of both parties' contentions and legal principles supported the award.

5. Legal precedents were cited to justify awarding damages when work is delayed without the contractor's fault. The court affirmed that the arbitrator's reasoning for the Rs.50,000 award for claims No. 8 and 9 was sound and in line with established legal principles.

6. The court emphasized that the arbitrator's duty is not to provide elaborate judgments but to give discernible reasons for the award. In this case, the arbitrator's reference to the delay being beyond the claimant's control and due to the respondent's actions sufficed as adequate reasoning.

7. Consequently, the objections of the first respondent were rejected, and the award was made a rule of the court. The petitioner was granted interest at 12% per annum on the awarded amount from the date of the decree until realization.