9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (9) TMI 420X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Delhi Municipal Corporation thought it ought to have been done, the petitioner wrote 29 letters during June, 1978 to July, 1980 regarding the timely completion of the work. It is alleged that the work was not completed by the 15th of January, 1980 as per the schedule in the contract. Show cause notice was given to the respondent-contractor. The contractor failed to give satisfactory reply and according to the petitioner, the contract was rescind. Thereafter several other letters were written which are not material to refer. There was an arbitration clause in the agreement. On 2nd November, 1982 an application was filed under section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter called 'the Act') in the Delhi High Court. A lea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oceeding like the present. It is desirable, however, that we state our reasons for so holding. In order to appreciate this the award of the arbitrator must be looked into. The arbitrator in his award has dealt with various claims, one of the main claims was the claim of 23,850 out of which 8,300 was in the form of fixed deposit receipt carrying interest and the balance amount of 15,520 was deducted as security of 10% from the bills of the claimant. According to the claimant this amount had wrongly been forfeited by the Corporation at the time of rescission of the contract and that the same should be refunded to him. It was held by the arbitrator that there was provision in the agreement for extension of time for completion of the contrac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ave rational nexus with the conclusion arrived at by him. It was stated that it was admitted on behalf of the Corporation that there was initial delay of four months. This was controverted by the Corporation. They say that there was no admission. This, in our opinion was a significant factor that there was some delay and in spite of the delay the corporation gave letters to the contractor to complete the work and in the contract itself there was provision for extension of time. In our opinion, where reasons germane and relevant for the arbitrator to hold in the manner he did have been indicated, it cannot be said that it was unreasonable. Another factor the arbitrator had noted was that the site was not available due to the conduct of anoth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was unjustified and wrongful. Therefore, the Corporation's claim for getting the work executed at the risks and costs of the contractor was unjustified and the claim was so logically rejected and no amount was awarded on that score. The next claim was for ₹ 2739 on account of mild steel Lying with the contractor. On examination it was found that some quantities of steel had been consumed in the work and as such recovery could only be made for the balance quantity of 1172 kgs. at the recovery rate of ₹ 1.50 per kg. and the claim was, therefore, allowed in favour of the Corporation for ₹ 1,758. The Corporation further claimed a sum of ₹ 6,083.20 on account of non-return of certain steel. After taking into account t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce amount to the claimant within a reasonable time. There was a further claim for ₹ 10,000 as arbitration costs and the claim was rejected. It appears to be very reasonable and fair award. In this case, there was no violation of any principles of natural justice. It is not a case where the arbitrator has refused cogent and material factors to be taken into consideration. The award cannot be said to be vitiated by non-reception of material or non-consideration of the relevant aspects of the matter. Appraisement of evidence by the arbitrator is ordinarily never a matter which the Court questions and considers. The parties have selected their own forum and the deciding forum must be conceded the power of appraisement of the evidence. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fore 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
