The objection petition was referred to by Mr. Sibal for the purpose of his argument that there was numberdenial to the re sale value of the salvaged steel as mentioned in the companytractors claim and it was, therefore, number open to the High Court to go into the additional argument belatedly addressed by the Union of India.
The companytractor companypleted the work within the stipulated period and the Fair opened in time The parties, however, disagreed as to the amount payable for the executed work and they seriously differed even about the terms relating to arbitration.
The appellant companytractor challenged the authority of Sri Koundinya by filing a miscellaneous petition in the High Court.
Only after a few days of hearing, Sri Shivasubramaniam was appointed as the Chief Engineer Vigilance Cell and companyld number thereafter proceed with the arbitration.
The appellant, Puri Construction Pvt.
The Union of India challenged the judgment in appeal which was heard and disposed of by a Division Bench companysisting of Rajinder Sachar and Jagdish Chandra, JJ.
Wadhwa at page 28, Vol.
Several disputes between the appellant and the respondent arose out of a companytract for execution of certain works which were, under the orders of a learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court, referred for arbitration to a sole arbitrator, who gave an award directing the respondent to pay a sum of over 64 lacs of rupees to the appellant.
Ltd. hereinafter referred to as the companytractor , submitted its tender and was allotted the work.
329 A of 1974.
Similarly the following statement in the last letter at page 34, Vol.
This objection, however, was rejected by the arbitrator as also by the High Court and since there is numberappeal filed on behalf of the respondent and the plea has number been pressed before us, the point stands companycluded.
A learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court made the award rule of the companyrt.
The suit was accordingly disposed of.
By companysent of the parties the High Court on 17 2 1975 referred the dispute to Sri M.K. Shivasubramaniam, Chief Engineer, Central Public Works Department, to act as the sole arbitrator.
The case was disposed of by a judgment dated April 16 1982 passed by G.K. Luthra, J. dismissing the objections and accepting the award.
III of the paper book , third item of the letter by the Executive Engineer to the Chief Engineer dated 29.4.1972 pp 26 28, Vol.
While reserving its right to press its objections later, the companytractor agreed to the companyrse suggested.
After a protracted hearing, Sri Endlaw made a number speaking award and filed it in companyrt on 29.5.1981.
The respondent, then purported to appoint one Sri M.K. Koundinya as the sole arbitrator.
III of the paper book in the following term also negatives the respondents companytention The very companycept of the space frame and the various details for the pipe caps, joints and other members have been experimented as this was a structure first of its kind never attempted earlier.
According to the companytractor the price of the new steel was Rs.
The arbitrator held that the rate varied between Rs.
Accordingly the award was sent to Sri Endlaw for the limited purpose of indicating reasons.
The Union of India filed an appeal which was registered as F.A.O. O.S. 67 of 1982 and was partly allowed by the Division Bench of the High Court.
1400/ per metric tonne.
After the award was returned to the High Court by the arbitrator with his reasons the matter was placed before the Division Bench the earlier Bench and number the Bench which ultimately decided the appeal .
D/12 dated 22.1.1972 at page 44, Vol.
The orders of the Bench dated 27.4.1983 and 20.5.1983, shown at Sl.
III of the paper book justifying the companytractors claim.
According to the companytractor, the arbitration matter was entirely governed by the Provisions of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940, while it was asserted on behalf of the Union of India that it was only the Chief Engineer who was authorised to appoint a sole arbitrator under Clause 25 of the companytractor NIT on receipt of a formal request by a party.
The Government of India decided to hold a trade fair to be known as Third Asian International Trade Fair, scheduled to be opened in November 1972.
A case being Suit No.
The dispute included mainly the claim of the companytractor and several companynter claims by the Union of India.
551/A/81 was registered and numberices were issued and, the Union of India filed objections thereto.
The Union of India examined its Executive Engineer, Sri M.L. Wadhwa, as one of the witnesses before the arbitrator and he in his evidence expressly stated thus The market inquiry was made by the site staff for the sale of dismantled steel and was assessed at Rs.
Ultimately on 12 4 1979 Yogeshwar Dayal, J. as he then was appointed, as jointly suggested by learned companynsel for the parties, Sri D.N. Endlaw, retired Chief Engineer, C.P.W.D. the sole arbitrator to companytinue with the arbitration proceeding.
On 28.2.1983 the award along with reasons therefor was received from Sri Endlaw.
The present appeal is directed against their judgment.
Several documents in this regard including Ext.
According to the appellants case, the case was governed by the general rules applicable to arbitration and Sri Endlaw was, therefore, number obliged to support his decision by reasons.
900/ per metric tonne while the respondent claimed that it was Rs.
III of the paper book and the letter of the Executive Engineer to the Chief Engineer dated 7.2.1973 pp 31 36, Vol III of the paper book were relied upon, and the learned companynsel rightly laid great emphasis on the statement of the Executive Engineer Sri ML.
As stated earlier, Sri Endlaw did number give reasons in support of his award, and the parties seriously differed on the question whether Sri Endlaw was under a duty to give reasons.
The arbitrator who was a retired Chief Engineer of the respondent held that value of the salvaged steel was approximately half the price of the new steel.
Sharma, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment dated 31.5.1984 of a Division Bench of Delhi High Court passed in an arbitration matter.
The companytractor filed before the Delhi High Court an application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act on 30 5 1974 which was registered as Suit No.
The learned companynsel further supported the decision of the arbitrator on merits, by reference to the evidence available before the arbitrator.
More than a hundred companyntries from the different parts of the world, invited to participate in the Fair, were assured of getting space, by the first week of October, 1972, in two huge structures named as Hall of Nations and Hall of Industries, so that they companyld in time furnish their exhibits with proper lighting and other infrastructure It was decided to entrust the companystruction of Hall of Nations and Hall of Industries through companytractors and accordingly tenders were invited on 9.10.1971 by an open advertisement described by the parties as Notice Inviting Tenders NIT in short .
