JUDGMENT
Mukundakam Sharma, J.
1. The present proceedings arises out of the application filed by the petitioner under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act. The petitioner was awarded a contract by the respondent for carrying out the work of Special inspection and preparation of comprehensive repairs plans for Wazirabad Barrage across the river Yamuna. During the execution of the aforesaid contract, disputes arose between the parties. The aforesaid contract also contained an arbitration clause being Clause 25 of the said agreement. Since disputes arose between the parties, the same were referred to the sole Arbitrator by the appointing authority under Clause 25 of the agreement.
2. The Arbitrator entered into the reference, received evidence adduced by the parties and after perusing the record made and published his award on 26.7.1995. The aforesaid award given by the Arbitrator is a nil award. The claims and counter claims of the parties were rejected by the Arbitrator. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid award passed by the Arbitrator, present petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the award on the ground that the Arbitrator has misconducted himself in making the award. In the context of the aforesaid submissions made in the objection petition and in the light of the aforesaid objection, I have heard the counsel appearing for the parties and have also perused the documents placed on record. The petitioner has raised altogether six claims whereas the respondent has raised three claims. It is also agreed to by the counsel for the parties that in the present case it was not mandatory for the Arbitrator to give a reasoned award.
3. Be that as it may, I may proceed to examine the award in the light of the submissions made by the counsel for the parties. The first claim is a claim of the petitioner for payment of Rs. 4,53,820/- for the work done but not paid and damages suffered on account of idle labour, establishment, chowkidars and building materials. The Arbitrator has discussed the evidence on record and upon perusal of the same, was of the opinion that whatever delay has taken place, the same was attributable to the petitioner and, therefore, the loss and damages suffered by the petitioner were of his own making.
4. The aforesaid conclusion has been arrived at upon appreciation of the evidence on record and this court would not embark upon to re-appreciate the evidence on record as an appellate court. As a matter of fact, such a power is not vested on this court to re-appreciate the evidence in order to come to a contrary finding. The award given by the Arbitrator in respect of the aforesaid claim is based on appreciation of the evidence and the said appreciation of the evidence recorded by the Arbitrator cannot be said to be not plausible and, therefore, I am not inclined to interfere with the award passed by the Arbitrator in respect of the said claim.
5. On the same analogy, the claims of the petitioner under claims 2 and 4 have also been rejected. Since I have upheld the award passed by the Arbitrator in respect of claim No. 1, therefore, I am not inclined to interfere with the award passed by the Arbitrator in respect of claims 2 and 4 also in view of the same position. So for claim No. 3 is concerned, the said claim was a matter relating to Clause 12, which is an excepted matter and, therefore, the Arbitrator rightly did not decide the said dispute as the same is governed under Clause 2 of the agreement, which is an excepted matter.
6. So far the award passed by the Arbitrator in respect of claim No. 5 is concerned, the Arbitrator has rightly held that there could not be any award as against the said claim. In claim No. 6 it was held that the parties shall bear their own costs. The aforesaid award passed by the Arbitrator in respect of claims No. 5 and 6 are held to be justified. So far payment of cost is concerned, the same is a discretion vested on the Arbitrator and since he has exercised the discretion directing the parties to bear their own costs, no interference is called for.
7. There is no objection filed by the respondent in respect of the award passed by the Arbitrator in respect of counter claims 1 to 3, which were rejected and, therefore, I am not called upon to give any finding in respect of the award given by the Arbitrator in respect of the same.
8. In the result, the award is found to be legal and valid and the same is made a rule of the court. A decree sheet shall be drawn up in terms of the award.