FAO (OS) No.207/2001 Page 1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + FAO(OS) No.207/2001 Reserved on : April 15, 2009 Pronounced on: April 17, 2009 DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY … Appellant Through : None. . versus M/s ANANT RAJ AGENCIES ..... Respondent Through : None CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKUL MUDGAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J. MEHTA 1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No % JUDGMENT VALMIKI J.MEHTA,J. 1. The appeal has been filed by the appellant/DDA under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 against the judgment dated 14.3.2001 of the learned Single Judge whereby the learned Single Judge has made the award rule of the court and dismissed the objections of the appellant except certain modifications, which are not material for the purposes of the present appeal. 2. The appellant in the grounds of appeal has confined its challenge only to the FAO (OS) No.207/2001 Page 2 claims No.2 and 10 which pertain respectively to damages on account of execution of work beyond the stipulated date of completion and expenditure incurred in maintaining the watch and ward staff. 3. None has appeared on behalf of the appellant to press the appeal. 4. We have, therefore, gone through the records and would dismiss the appeal for the reasons stated below. 5. The claim No.2 which pertained to claim of damages on account of execution of work beyond the stipulated date of completion has been considered by the learned Single Judge by specifically mentioning the six factors on behalf of the DDA which led to the delay in completion of the work. The contention of the appellant/objector before the learned Single Judge was that with respect to two of the six factors which the arbitrator has held being the reasons responsible for delay in completion of the work, were such factors for which under the contract no compensation could have been ordered. The learned Single Judge, in our opinion has rightly found that the other four facts were in themselves enough to support the decision of the Arbitrator with respect to his finding as regards the delay in completion of the contract. 6. The challenge to an award is limited, being under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, with regard to mis-conduct of the Arbitrator or mis-conduct of the proceedings. Sitting in appeal over a judgment of the learned Single Judge affirming the award, the jurisdiction will be even still further circumscribed in that the error in the judgment under challenge must be such that the finding is wholly illegal or perverse which calls for interference by this court in appeal. We do not so find and accordingly, FAO (OS) No.207/2001 Page 3 the challenge of the appellant seeking to upset the finding of the learned Single Judge with regard to claim No.2 thus cannot be sustained. 7. As regards the challenge to the finding of claim No.10 which pertains to expenditure incurred by the contractor/respondent in maintaining the watch and ward staff, the learned Single Judge has duly noted the finding of the arbitrator that though the work was completed on 15.4.1985, the respondent was required to keep the watch and ward staff even after the date of completion up to 15.10.1987. Surely it was not a duty of the contractor to keep the watch and ward staff after the completion of work and thus the contractor was therefore entitled to recompense. The learned Single Judge has in fact as corrected the error pointed out by counsel for the parties and reduced the claim under this head from Rs.2,45,500/- to Rs.2,23,500/-. The arbitrator is the master of facts and the courts would not interfere in the finding so arrived at unless the finding is shown to be wholly illegal/perverse or beyond the terms of the contract. As stated above, none has appeared on behalf of the appellant and we do not find any fault in the reasoning adopted by the learned Single Judge. It may be noted that the appellant has released the amount to the respondent and as per the statement of the counsel recorded on 1.11.2001. 8. In view of the above the appeal is dismissed, but without any order as to costs. VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J MUKUL MUDGAL, J April 17, 2009 ib