JUDGMENT
Mohd. Shamim, J.
1. This is a petition under Section 14 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 for issue of a direction to the arbitrator i.e. respondent No. 3 herein, to file the award dated May 25, 1995.
2. In pursuant to the said prayer a direction was issued to the learned arbitrator to file the award. The award was filed in pursuance to the said direction as is manifest from the order dated September 10, 1996. Notices were issued to both the parties with regard to the filing of the award. Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 filed objections to the said award (vide IA No. 258/97) while the petitioner did not choose to file any objections thereto.
3. A perusal of the objections filed by the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 reveals that the respondents have confined their objections to claims Nos. 1,3,4,7,8 and counter claim.
FINDINGS:
Claims Nos. 3 & 4
4. Learned counsel for the respondents Mr. Sharma has vehemently contended that the claimant herein did not complete the work within time and a penalty of Rs. 4,000/- was imposed on him by the Superintending Engineer on account of inefficiency shown in the completion of the work which resulted in the delay as he could not complete the work within the stipulated period. However, the learned arbitrator instead of penalising the claimant for the delay in the completion of the work put premium on his delay and latches and awarded a sum of Rs. 1,17,173/- against claims Nos. 3 and 4. This is
all the more unreasonable in the circumstances of the present case inasmuch as there is a finding by the learned arbitrator that both the parties are responsible for the delay.
5. The next contention raised by the learned counsel for the respondents is that both the claims have been decided together and a consolidated sum of Rs. 1,17,173/- has been awarded to the claimant. This was not proper. No reason, much less a cogent reason, was given out as to how the learned arbitrator arrived at the above-mentioned conclusion and awarded a sum of Rs. 1.17.173/- against the said claims, though he was under an obligation to give out a reasoned award.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged to the contrary.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties at sufficient length and have very carefully examined their rival contentions and have given my anxious thoughts thereto.
8. The first and the foremost contention raised by the learned counsel for the objectors is that the impugned award is not a reasoned award though the learned arbitrator was under an obligation (vide 25) to give a reasoned award and as per terms of reference which cast an obligation on the shoulders of the arbitrator to give out reasons in support of his findings. Learned counsel for the objectors in this connection has led me through the terms of the reference which are in the following words.
“Whether the claim of the claimant is justified as per terms and conditions of the agreement, if so, to what extent ?”
9. The learned counsel inspired by the words of cl. 25 and the terms of reference has vehemently contended that the impugned award is no award in the eye of law inasmuch as it is not a reasoned award and as such, it is liable to be set aside on this short ground alone.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner has urged to the contrary.
10. It is a well established principle of law that an arbitrator is under no obligation to give out detailed reasons for arriving at his conclusions. It is sufficient enough if he gives out reasons which may be considered to be sufficient enough in the circumstances of a given case. The Court has got no power to re-appreciate the evidence which was before an arbitrator. It is beyond his forte. An award cannot be set aside simple because the Court on the basis of the evidence which was before the arbitrator could come to a different finding. Thus an award can be set aside only in those
discerning few cases which fall within the domain of Section 30 of the Arbitration Act i.e., (a) when an arbitrator had mis-conducted himself and the proceedings; (b) an award has been made after the issue of an order by the Court superseding the arbitration and (c) when an award has been improperly procured or is otherwise invalid.
11. I am supported in my above view by the observations of a Division Bench of this Court which were given vent to in College of Vocational Studies Vs. S.S. Jaitley (AIR 1987 Delhi 134, para 18),…..”There are limits for judicial reviewability and the Courts exercise limited jurisdiction in the proceedings for setting aside an award under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. The Courts do not exercise appellate jurisdiction over the verdict of an arbitrator and as such cannot go into the merits of
the case nor the Courts can reappraise and re-examine the evidence led before the arbitrator. Unless it is specifically agreed between the parties by means of an arbitration agreement, the arbitrator is not bound to give reasons for his verdict, in other words, the arbitrator can give a non speaking award unless he is required by means of an agreement or terms of reference to give reasons for his award. The Courts also cannot look into the insufficiency of the evidence led before the arbitrator. When the arbitrator is required to give reasons, it is not for the Courts to see the
reasonableness of the reasons given by the arbitrator or sufficiency of the reasons. However, what reasons are required, it depends upon the facts of each case”.
12. To the same effect are the observations of another Division Bench of this Court as reported in Delhi Development Authority Vs. M/s. Uppal Engineering Construction Co., New Delhi, , and M/s. Hindustan Tea Co. Vs. M/s. K. Shashikant & Co. and another, .
13. The learned arbitrator while deciding the said claim has given out the reasons for arriving at his conclusions at page 2 of the award as well as while deciding the same. He has in this connections referred to several documents relied upon by the claimant as well as by the respondents. He has also referred to certain authorities. Thus the learned counsel is not justified in saying that the arbitrator has not given out the reasons while awarding the claimant a sum of Rs. 1,17,173/-. This Court is incompetent to go into the reasonableness of the reasons given out by the learned arbitrator.
14. Learned counsel for the petitioner has led me through Cl. 5 of the arbitration agreement which deals with the extension of time & Exh. R-4. It goes to show that there was a total delay of 445 days and out of the same a delay of 432 days has been condoned (vide Exh. R-4). Hence, the contention of the learned counsel that there was a delay on the part of both the parties, the arbitrator should not have allowed the claim of the petitioner/claimant is without any substance in the circumstances of the present case inasmuch as the delay on the part of the claimant was condoned as is
manifest from above.
15. The next contention that both the claims. i.e., claims Nos. 3 & 4, were decided together and a consolidated sum of Rs. 1,17,173/- was awarded without any indication as to how much amount was awarded under which claim, hence the award is not a reasoned award, is without any substance. I have already held above that reasons have been given for the findings given by the arbitrator.
Claim No.1 & counterclaim.
16. The claimant claimed a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of the earnest money and security deposit. The claimant admittedly after the completion of the work was entitled to the return of the security amount and the earnest money. The only objection raised from the side of the respondent was that the said amount could have been refunded when the claimant paid the sum of Rs. 2,02,215/- which is the amount of minus final bill. The respondent has claimed the said amount.
17. The learned arbitrator while dealing with the counter claim awarded a sum of Rs.18,724/- only and he has given out good reasons for arriving at the said conclusion. Thus no interference is called for from the side of this court on the said finding.
Claim Nos. 7 & 8.
18. The learned arbitrator has awarded simple interest at the rate of 12% per annum from May 23, 1991 to the date of the award i.e. May 25, 1995. He has then awarded interest at the rate of 15% per annum from the date of the award to the date of actual payment. I do not find any thing wrong therewith.
19. The arbitrator has awarded a sum of Rs. 100,000/- by way of costs of arbitration proceedings. There is nothing wrong about it. It is quite just and proper in the circumstances of the present case. Moreover, the learned counsel for the objectors has also not argued anything on the above points.
20. In the above circumstances the petitioner is entitled to succeed. The petition is hereby allowed with costs and the objections are hereby dismissed. The award dated May 25, 1995 is hereby made a rule of the court and a decree in terms of the same is hereby passed. The award shall form a part of the decree.