JUDGMENT
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.
IA 3259/1996 ( Under Section 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1933) in CS(OS) 1031A/1995
1. The petitioner-contractor was awarded the contract for construction of MIG Houses at Paschimpuri. Disputes arose between the parties and in view of Arbitration Clause 25 of the terms and conditions of the contract, Mr. R.J.Bakhru, Chief Engineer(Retd) CPWD was appointed as the sole arbitrator by the engineer member DDA in terms of letter dated 23.08.1991. The arbitrator made and published his a ward on 24.03.1995. The respondent aggrieved by the same has filed the present objections.
2. Learned counsel for the respondent initially sought to challenge almost all the claims awarded but could not dispute that the objections were based only on a plea of re-appraisal of evidence and facts on record. It is not the function of this court to re-appreciate the evidence or to interfere with the award merely on the basis that the court would come to a different conclusion on the material available before the arbitrator and it is only in the eventuality of an award being perverse that an interference would be called for as held by the Division Bench of this court in DDA v. Bhagat Construction Co.(P)Ltd. and Anr.,2004 (3) Arb.LR 481. The Supreme Court in Sudarsan Trading Co. v. Govt of Kerala; AIR 1989 has in fact observed that so long as view taken by the arbitrator is plausible, though perhaps not the only correct view, the award cannot be examined by the court.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent faced with the aforesaid position, confines her submissions to only claims No. 11 and 12 which arise on account of losses/damages suffered by the petitioner by reason of prolongation of the contract. The arbitrator has found that the contract was prolonged due to faults attributable to the respondent. Material and equipment had to be detained at site due to prolongation of the contract. Not only that, the respondent failed to take possession of the constructed quarters and the petitioner had to maintain staff for watch and ward. Once the arbitrator has come to the conclusion that the fault lies with the respondent for prolongation of the contract, award with respect to claims No. 11 and 12 on account of expenses incurred by the petitioner as a consequence thereof, cannot be faulted. Thus the objection is rejected.
4. The last plea is raised in respect of claim No. 15 where interest has been awarded at the rate of 14 per cent per annum. Learned counsel for the petitioner himself fairly confines claim of interest at 12 per cent per annum which, in my considered view, is fair and reasonable rate of interest at the relevant period of time. 5. In view of the aforesaid, objections stand disposed of. CS(OS) 1031A/1995 –
1. In view of the objections having been disposed of and there being no legal impediment in law, award of the sole arbitrator Mr. R.J.Bakhru dated 24.03.1995 is made rule of the court with the modification that the respondent will be liable to pay interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum instead of 14 per cent per annum under the award till the date of decree. Petitioner shall also be entitled to future interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from date of decree till date of realisation. Petitioner shall be entitled to costs. In case the payment in terms of decree is made within 60 days from today, the respondent shall be exempted from paying future interest.
2. Decree sheet be drawn up accordingly.