OMP No. 50/2009 M/s Globe Construction Co. v. Union of India Page 1 of 4 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Reserve: 24.3.2009 Date of Order: 11th May 2009 OMP No. 50/2009 % M/s Globe Construction Co. ... Petitioner Through: Mr. G.D.Chopra, Advocate Versus Union of India ... Respondent Through: Mr. Vineet Malhotra, Advocate with Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the reporter or not? 3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest? JUDGMENT 1. By this petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, the petitioner has raised objections against the award dated 21.10.2008 of the learned Arbitrator. 2. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this petition are that the petitioner had executed civil work for the respondent and thereafter raised a dispute about non-payment of certain claims. This dispute was referred to the OMP No. 50/2009 M/s Globe Construction Co. v. Union of India Page 2 of 4 Arbitrator and learned Arbitrator after considering the pleadings and evidence of both the parties passed the award. The claim raised by the petitioner and the amount awarded by the learned Arbitrator are as under: Claim Amount Claimed Amount Awarded Claim No.1 – In respect of amount withheld in final bill Rs.24,000/- Rs.24,000/- Claim No.2 – Amount wrongly recovered at penal rate recovery Rs.2,43,000/- Rs.2,42,979/- Claim No.3 – Lesser rate paid for agreement items. Rs.39,250/- Rs.39,246/- Claim No.4 – Recovery on account of overweight Torsteel Rs.33,040/- Nil Claim No.5 – Seeking refund of amount recovered on account of rebates by the claimant Rs.3,47,293 Rs.1,59,528/- Claim No.6 – For refund of amount recovered under garb of RIS/MEI/DIS Rs.82,500/- Rs.41,493/- OMP No. 50/2009 M/s Globe Construction Co. v. Union of India Page 3 of 4 Claim No.7 – Work done but not paid Rs.3,60,000/- Rs.74,756/- Claim No.8 – Interest for delay in payment Rs.4,72,052/- Rs.3,19,323/- Claim No.9 – Balance payment under Clause 10CC Rs.6,50,000/- Rs.4,34,116/- Claim No.10 – Damage and Loss of Profit Rs.21,00,000/- Rs.2,00,000/- Claim No.11 – Interest @ 18% w.e.f 1.12.1995 @10% of awarded amount w.e.f. 1.1.2004 3. Apart from allowing claims of the claimant to the above tune, the learned Arbitrator also awarded amount of Rs. 30,000/- to the petitioner towards cost of arbitration. Thus, the total sum awarded to the petitioner was Rs.12,46,118/- 4. The claimant/petitioner has assailed the award against each of the claims except claim no.4. The various grounds as stated by the claimant in its challenge are on the merits of each claim. It is settled law that while considering challenge to the award under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, this Court does not act as a Court of appeal against the order of the OMP No. 50/2009 M/s Globe Construction Co. v. Union of India Page 4 of 4 learned Arbitrator. The Arbitrator is the final judge chosen by the parties in respect of facts and law. The Arbitrator in this case is a retired Additional Director General of CPWD, who was well versed with the civil engineering works and he has given reasons for allowing the claims either partly or in full. In respect of claim no.7 he has given table specifying the measurements of different items which were claimed by the petitioner not having been paid and he has taken into account the amount paid and the amount as claimed by the petitioner, the rates and what was required to be paid further. Against each of the claims, the learned Arbitrator has considered all material which was placed by the petitioner and the respondent and given reasons why the particular amount was being allowed. 5. In view of the award being a speaking and reasoned award and given by an expert of its field, I consider that the award does not warrant any interference on the grounds as stated by the petitioner for challenging the award. The grounds taken by the petitioner for challenging the award do not fall within the purview of Section 34. I find no reason to entertain this petition. The petition is hereby dismissed having no force. May 11, 2009 SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J. vn