Delhi District Court Dharamvir vs Delhi Development Authority on 4 February, 2023 IN THE COURT OF MS. RUCHIKA SINGLA, ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE03, NORTHWEST DISTT., ROHINI COURTS, DELHI Arb. No. : 58288/16 In the matter of: DHARAMVIR S/O SH. JEET RAM R/O R61, PITAMPURA VILLAGE, DELHI110088. ........ Petitioner VERSUS DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Through its Executive Engineer ND11/DDA, Ashok Vihar, Phase1, Near Railway Crossing, Delhi110052. ........ Respondent Date of institution : 24.08.2016 Date on which judgment was reserved : 31.01.2023 Date of pronouncement of the judgment : 04.02.2023 Arb. no. 58288/16 Dharamvir vs. Delhi Development Authority Page no. 14 of 14 JUDGMENT APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 34 of THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996 FOR SETTING ASIDE THE AWARD DATED 19.05.2016. 1. By this judgment, I shall dispose of the objections filed u/s 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 filed by the petitioner seeking setting aside of the award made and published on 19.05.2016 by the Ld. Sole Arbitrator vide which the claim filed by the petitioner for payment was dismissed. 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 development of the C and D Block, Shalimar Bagh by constructing a boundary wall of the proposed green belt on the peripheral drains parallel to the railway track. The tender was awarded to the petitioner vide order dated 20.09.2011. The stipulated date for starting of the work was 30.09.2011 and the stipulated date of completion was fixed till 29.01.2012. The work was actually completed on 11.06.2012. It is stated that the work was being done by the petitioner diligently but the delay was caused due to the conditions attributible on the part of the respondent/ DDA. Hence, the date of the completion of the contract was provisionally extended by the respondent from time to time. Due to the extension of the time, the petitioner furnished a claim with the respondent but a sum of Rs.27,75,175/ was not paid Arb. no. 58288/16 Dharamvir vs. Delhi Development Authority Page no. 14 of 14 by the respondent. Hence, the petitioner exercised his option for the appointment of an Arbitrator, who decided the claim and made and published his Award on 19.05.2016. 3. The main grounds for challenge of the award are that the petitioner during the hearing dated 16.10.2015 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. 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 Arb. no. 58288/16 Dharamvir vs. Delhi Development Authority Page no. 14 of 14 appointed was an official of the respondent. Hence, his impartiality 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 procedure of law. Further, it is stated that the award was published by the Ld. Arbitra