JUDGMENT
Sunanda Bhandare, J.
(1) The petitioner was awarded tender for providing and fixing door shutters in 201 DU’s AGD-IV as per agreement No. 5/PE/AGD IV/81-82. Disputes and differences arose between the parties and since under the general terms and conditions of the contract, the disputes have to be resolved by arbitration, the disputes were referred to the sole arbitration of respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 2 made his award on 12th August 1986 which was filed in this Court.
(2) The respondent – Delhi Development Authority filed objections to the award under Sections 15, 16, 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act. By this order, I shall dispose of the objections filed by the respondent.
(3) The parties were permitted to lead evidence in support of their respective cases by means of affidavits. Accordingly, affidavits have been filed by the parties.
(4) It was contended by the learned Counsel for the respondent – D.D.A. that under Clause 25 of the agreement, the arbitrator was under an obligation to give reasoned award having regard to the amount of claim involved therein. The Arbitrator having failed to give reasons, the award deserves to be set aside. Learned Counsel referred to the findings of the Arbitrator on claims Nos. 1, 2, 5 and 7 and submitted that the Arbitrator has merely given his findings and conclusions whereas he ought to have indicated as to bow and by what process he has arrived at those findings. Learned Counsel further submitted that the Arbitrator allowed the claim No. 7 for pendente lite interest which he had no authority to do. He relied on Executive Engineer, Irrigation, Kalimela & ors. v. Abhaduta Jena, and State of Orissa & ors. v. Construction India, and submitted that the Arbitrator has no power to grant interest for period between commencement of the reference and date of the award because the Arbitrator is not a court. On the other hand, it was submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the Arbitrator is not required to give detailed reasons for his award. Learned Counsel relied on Delhi Development Authority v. Mis. Alkaram, , in support of this contention. Learned Counsel further submitted that even assuming it is found that the Arbitrator has not given reasons, the case be remitted back to the Arbitrator for submitting his reasons for conclusions already given. Learned Counsel relied on Puri Construction Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, in support of this contention.
(5) On perusal of the award, I fit that the Arbitrator has allowed claims Nos. 1,2, 5 and 7 of the petitioner but has not given the basis on which he came to the conclusions. It does appear that the Arbitrator had inspected the site before allowing claim No. I of Rs. 2,33,090.00 . It is true that he is not required to give detailed reasons but he should have at least indicated why the full claim has not been allowed and why only a part of the claim amounting to Rs. 2,33,090.00 is allowed. As observed by the Division Bench in Delhi Development Authority’s case (supra); “The requirement of reasons meets the elementary demand of the parties to be told ‘the reason why’ for a particular conclusion arrived at by the Arbitrator”. Thus the Arbitrator must at least broadly indicate the reasons for his decision which he has not done. The same is the case in respect of claim No. 2. The Arbitrator came to a conclusion that the work was .unavoidably delayed and claimant was not responsible for the delay. However, he has not given the reasons for his conclusion. Same is also the case in respect of claim No. 5. As regards claim No. 7 which deals with pendente lite interest, the position in law is very well settled. The Supreme Court in Executive Engineer, Irrigation. Kalimela & ors., (supra) has observed as follows: “IN regard to pendente lite interest, that is, interest from the date of reference to the date of the award, the claimants would not be entitled to the same for the simple reason that the Arbitrator is not a Court within the meaning of Section 34 of the Civil Procedure Code ., nor were the reference to arbitration made in the course of suits. In the remaining case which arose before the commencement of the Interest Act, 1978, the respondents are not entitled to claim interest either before the commencement of the proceedings or during the pendency of the arbitration They are not entitled to claim interest for the period prior to the commencement of the arbitration proceedings for the reason that the Interest Act, 1839 does not apply to their cases and there is no agreement to pay interest or any usage of trade having the force of law or any other provision of law under which the claimants were entitled to recover interest. They are not entitled to claim pendente lite interest as the Arbitrator is not a Court nor were the references to arbitration made in suits.”
(6) In the present case, the reference was not made in the course of a suit and the Arbitrator not being a Court, the petitioner was not entitled to claim interest from the date of reference to the date of the award. Thus, in any event the Arbitrator had no authority to grant pendente lite interest.
(7) I do not see any force in the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that even if the award is found to be bad because the Arbitrator has not given the reasons, the case should be remitted back to the Arbitrator for submitting his reasons. The dispute pertains to an agreement of 1981-82 and the reference was made in the year 1984. The award was made on 12th August, 1986. Since the Arbitrator is not being represented in this Court it is not possible to know whether the Arbitrator has maintained the record in respect of the inspection conducted by him and it is also difficult to know whether he would remember all the facts of the case. It is true that in Puri Construction Pvt. Lid’s, case (supra) the Court bad remitted the case back to the Arbitrator with a direction to give reasons for his conclusions but in that case the Division Bench of the High Court had recorded the statement of the Arbitrator in court and, therefore, the Court had felt that it would be just and proper to ask the Arbitrator to give his reasons in writing. In the present case, no such thing has been done. In my view, therefore, justice of the case requires that the Arbitrator hears both the parties and gives his award afresh on claims Nos. 1, 2, and 5.
(8) The objections are allowed. The finding of the arbitrator on claim No. 7 is set aside and the case is remitted back to the arbitrator for fresh decision on claims Nos. 1, 2, and 5. The Arbitrator is directed to give his fresh award within three months from today.
(9) No costs.