Delhi District Court M/S Dharamvir And Company vs Delhi Development Authority on 9 February, 2023 IN THE COURT OF MS. RUCHIKA SINGLA, ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE03, NORTHWEST DISTT., ROHINI COURTS, DELHI Arb. No. : 850/17 In the matter of: M/s DHARAMVIR AND COMPANY (Through Sh. Dharamvir Sole Proprietor) H No. 123, Pocket 9, Sector24, Rohini, New Delhi110085. ........ Petitioner VERSUS 1. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Through its Vice Chairman Vikas Sadan, I.N.A. New Delhi110023. 2. The Executive Engineer Rohini Project Division no. 13/SD2, DDA Office Complex, Deepali Chowk, Rohini, Delhi85. ........ Respondent Date of institution : 20.07.2017 Date on which judgment was reserved : 09.02.2023 Date of pronouncement of the judgment : 09.02.2023 Arb. no. 850/17 Dharamvir & Co. vs. Delhi Development Authority Page no. 14 of 14 JUDGMENT OBJECTION PETITION UNDER SECTION 34 of THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996 AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 22.05.2017 PASSED BY THE LD. ARBITRATOR SH. D.V. RAGHAV. S.E. (ARBN), DDA, DISMISSING THE CLAIMS OF THE PETITIONER. 1. By this judgment, I shall dispose of the objection petition under section 34 of the Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 against the award dated 22.05.2017 passed by the Ld. Arbitrator Sh. D.V. RAGHAV. S.E. (ARBN), DDA, dismissing the claims of the petitioner. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that a tender was invited by the respondent i.e. Delhi Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as "DDA") for maintaince of completed schemes under Rohini Zone SH for improvement of 13.00 meter road in Pocket 16, Sector16, Rohini, Delhi. The tender was awarded to the petitioner vide order dated 16.07.2011. The period for completion of the work was decided as 60 days. The work was actually completed on 24.09.2011. It is stated that the amount which was released by the respondent was on a different rate as agreed between the parties at the time of the beginning of the work. Hence, the petitioner exercised his option for the appointment of an Arbitrator, who decided the claim and made and published his Award on Arb. no. 850/17 Dharamvir & Co. vs. Delhi Development Authority Page no. 14 of 14 22.05.2017. 3. The main grounds for challenge of the award are that the petitioner during the hearing dated 05.08.2016 submitted that he wanted to lead oral evidence on vital issues. However, the Abritrator erroneously concluded that no oral evidence was required. Moreover, no judicial principles / norms were followed by the Arbitrator while adjudicating the controversy. It is asserted that the award of the Arbitrator is in violation of the terms of the Agreement and is in conflict with Public Policy of India. Also, the parties were not permitted by the Arbitrator to make oral submissions and forced to give written submissions. When the petitioner failed to furnish written submissions, he wasn't given any opportunity to address oral arguments, which gives rise to justifiable doubt about his independence and impartiality. The petitioner also filed various letters for change of the Ld. Arbitrator but the same were not considered. 4. Further, it is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the petitioner that the appointment of the Arbitrator was in violation of Section 12 of the Act of 2015. It is submitted that though the Arbitrator was appointed before the coming into force of Act of 2015, but it is a basic principle of natural justice that a party can not be a Judge in its own cause. It is submitted that the sole Arbitrator which was appointed was an official of the respondent. Hence, his impartiality Arb. no. 850/17 Dharamvir & Co. vs. Delhi Development Authority Page no. 14 of 14 could not have been guaranteed at any point of time. In view of the conduct of Ld. Arbitrator wherein he disallowed the petitioner to lead evidence and to advance any oral arguments, it can be rightly concluded that he did not adopt an impartial behaviour towards the petitioner. 5. Ld. Counsel for the respondent has opposed the objections. It is submitted that the award has been passed by Ld. Arbitrator after following all the procedures established by law and ensuring the fairness in the trial. It is submitted that just because the Arbitrator was the official of the DDA does not mean that he was partial or has not acted as per the p