Sunita Const. Co v. University of Delhi

NAVIN CHAWLA, J FEBRUARY 23, 2018/Arya

Page 1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS (OS) 2163/2011 Reserved on: 10th January, 2018 Date of decision: 23rd February, 2018 SUNITA CONST. CO. ..... Plaintiff Through: Mr.Sandeep Sharma, Mr.Aditya Vashishth, Advs. versus UNIVERSITY OF DELHI ..... Defendant Through: Mr.G.K.Pathak, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA 1. The present suit was registered on the filing of the Award dated 06.08.2011 passed by the Sole Arbitrator in the arbitration proceedings between the parties. 2. Upon issuance of the notice of filing of the Award to the parties, the respondent, University of Delhi filed its objection thereto under Section 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. 3. Before dealing with the objection, it would be proper to remind oneself of the limit of jurisdiction of this Court while exercising power under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. In Sudarsan Trading Company v. Government of Kerala and Anr. (1989) 2 SCC 38, the Supreme Court had reiterated that in exercise of power under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, the Court has no jurisdiction to substitute its own evaluation of the conclusion of law or fact to come to the Page 2 conclusion that the Arbitrator had acted contrary to the bargain between the parties. Whether a particular amount was liable to be paid or damages liable to be sustained, was a decision within the competency of the Arbitrator. The Arbitrator is the sole judge of the quality as well as the quantity of evidence and it will not be for the court to take upon itself the task of being a judge on the evidence led before the Arbitrator. Appraisement of the evidence by the Arbitrator is never a matter which the Court questions and considers. If the parties have selected their own forum, the deciding forum must be conceded the power of appraisement of the evidence. The High Court has no jurisdiction to examine the different items awarded clause by clause by the Arbitrator and to hold that under the contract these were not sustainable in the facts found by the Arbitrator. An award is not invalid merely because by a process of inference and argument it may be demonstrated that the arbitrator has committed some mistake in arriving at his conclusion. 4. In Food Corporation of India vs. Joginder Pal Mohinder Pal & Anr., AIR 1989 SC 1263, the Supreme Court clarified that "it is not misconduct on the part of an Arbitrator to come to an erroneous decision, whether his error is one of fact or law, and whether or not his findings of fact are supported by evidence". It was further held that the Court cannot sit in appeal over the views of the arbitrator by re-examining and re-assessing the material. 5. In Puri Construction Pvt. Ltd. vs. UOI, (1989) 1 SCC 411, it was again emphasized that "when a Court is called upon to decide the objections raised by a party against an Arbitral Award, the jurisdiction of the Court is limited, as expressly indicated in the Arbitration Act, and it Page 3 has no jurisdiction to sit in an appeal and examine the correctness of the Award on merits". 6. In Harish Chandra and Company vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2016) 9 SCC 478, Supreme Court reiterated as:- "25. One cannot, therefore, dispute the legal proposition, which is now fairly settled keeping in view the aforementioned law laid down by this Court that an award can be set aside only on the grounds specified in clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Section 30 of the 1940 Act and on no other grounds. Indeed this is clear from the opening words of Section 30 itself which starts with the words "An award shall not be set aside except on one or more of the following grounds". A fortiori, a reasoned award cannot be set aside unless it falls in any of the three clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Section 30 of the 1940 Act. 26. The grounds such as inadequacy of reasons in support of an award, error committed by the arbitrator on facts, alternate and/or more plausible view could be taken then what is taken by the arbitrator, im