[2008] 12 S.C.R. 785

"'1

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY A

MIS R.S. SHARMA & CO., NEW DELHI

(Civil Appeal No. 2424 of 2002)

AUGUST 26, 2008 B

[P. SATHASIVAM AND AFTAB ALAM, JJ.]

~ --+

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - s. 34(2) -Setting aside of arbitration award - Principles therein - Discussed -

On facts, work for development of land between DOA and c contractor- Disput~ with regard to extra cartage, stone brought from Nooh quarries in Haryana to Delhi - Claim of extra rate @ Rs.301per cubic mtr - Award in favour of contractor - However, Single Judge of High Court set aside the award in respect of claims for extra cartage but Division Bench upheld D the same - Held: Not justified - Extra cartage was awarded 7 without adverting to clause 3. 16 of agreement, which prohibits

~ extra cartage over and above the rate of payment specified in " the Agreement - Contractor is wholly responsible for all extra leads - Arbitrator gave no reasons for accepting the claim, E thus there is error apparent on face of award- There is nothing on record to show that Department insisted upon bringing stone aggregate only from Nooh - Hence, contractor not entitled to increased rates for extra lead- Judgment of Division Bench of High Court set aside and that of Single Judge restored.

,1"'-. l.

F ...

The appellant-Delhi Development Authority and the respondent-Company entered into work agreement for development Of the land according to the terms and conditions of the contract. During execution of the work, dispute arose between the parties, with regard to extra G cartage-stone brought from Nooh, Ha.ryana. The dispute

:__y~ ,, was referred to the Sole Arbitrator for adjudication. The claimant raised claim Nqs. 1-3 and additional claim Nos. 1-3 claiming extra rate of Rs.30/- per cubic meter over and

785 H

A above th.e rate agreed to in the Agreement for extra cartage involved in bringing the stone aggregate from Nooh 'quarries to Delhi. It was claimant's case that it was required to use Delhi. quartz stone conforming to C..PWD specifications; that since DDA had failed to indicaJe the B approved quarry at Delhi for obtaining supplies of Delhi quartz stone, it had obtained blue quartz stone from Nooh quarries in Haryana, thus, the . claimant was entitled to extra rates at the rate of Rs .. 30/- per cubic meter for procurement of stone aggregate from the quarries at Nooh c in Haryana. The Arbitrator made the Award in favour of respondent. The respondent filed suit for making the Award a rule of the Court. The Single Judge of the High Court set aside the Award with respect to Claim Nos. 1 to . 3 as well as Additional Claim Nos. 1 to 3 and made the

0 remaining part of the Award c:{rule of the Court. It awarded interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of the decree till the . date of payment by DDA. However, the Division Bench bf the High Court set aside the order passed by the Single Judge and directed that the Award passed by the Arbitrator

b~ made a Rule of the Court along with interest @ 12% E p.a. from the date of the decree till the date of payment on the entire amount as awarded. by the Arbitrator. Hence the present appeal.

 - Allowing the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1. An Award, which is contrary to substantive . provisionsof law ; or the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ; or against the terms of the respective contract ; or patently illegal, cfrf)'rejudicial to the rights of the parties, is open to interference by the G 1 Court under section 34(2) of the Arbitration and

Conciliation-Act, 1996. An award could be set aside if it is contrary to fundamental policy of Indian Law; or the interest of India; or justice or morality. The Award could also be set aside if it is so unfair and unreasonable that H it shocks the conscience of the Court. It is open to the

,.! +

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTH. v. MIS R.S. 787

SHARM/'. &. ~O., NEW DELHI

Court to consider whether the Award is against the . A specific terms of contract and if so, interfere with it on the ground that it is patently illegal and opposed to the public

policy of India. [Para 12] [801-A-F]

Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd. & Anr. vs. 8alasore Technical School (2000) 9 SCC 552; General Manager, B Northern Railway & Anr. vs. Sarvesh Chopra (2002) 4 SCC 45; State of Rajasthan vs. Nav Bharat Construction Co. (2006) 1 sec 86; Hindustan Zinc Ltd. VS. Friends Coal Carbonisation

(2006) 4 sec 445 - relied on.

2.1 The perusal of the Award of the Arbitrator as well as the judgment of the Division Bench of High Court clearly shows that they did not advert to the clause 3.16

of the Agrement. The extra cartage was awarded by the Arbitrator without adverting to clause 3.16 of the 0 Agreement, hence, the Single Judge of High Court was wholly justified in partially setting aside the Award in respect of the claims with respect to the extra cartage.

The pleadings and evidence placed on record pertaining to Claim Nos. 1-3 and additional Claim Nos. 1-3 have been perused. The Single Judge of High Court rightly observed E that there was no material on record to substantiate the case of the claimant, viz., DOA had insisted upon the claimant for using the stone aggregates brought from Nooh in Haryana. In those circumstances and of the fact that the terms and conditions of the Agreement are binding F on both the parties, in the absence oJ specific clause with regc; trd to payment of extra cartage and in view of clause 3.16, the respondent-claimant cannot claim extra cartage @ Rs.30/- per cubic meter on the ground of extra lead involved in bringing the stone aggregates from Nooh in G Haryana. The Division Bench lie the Arbitrator proceeded on the sole basis that ODA had compelled the claimant-Company from bringing the stone aggregates from Nooh in Haryana and committed an error in affirming the erroneous conclusion arrived at by the Arbitrator H

A insofar as the additional claims are concerned. The Division Bench proceeded on an erroneous premise that the appellant-DOA nowhere stipulated where the stone was to be brought from. It is true that ODA had given certain specifications required to be conformed. Further, B the cost of the work was irrespective of the source or lead from where the stone was brought. The award is completely silent on the relevant clause viz. clause 3.16 of the Agreement which makes it clear that the contractor is wholly responsible for all the extra leads. In fact, the c Arbitrator has given no reason whatsoever so far as the rate claimed for the extra lead by the claimant and has verbatim accepted the claim without giving any justification for the same. This is an error apparent on the~ face of the record as well as contrary to the terms of the

0 Agreement. [Para 16] [802-F-H 803-A-F]

2.2 In terms of clause 3.16 of the Contract, it js the responsibility of the Contractor to collect and stock the material and the rates quoted by him including all leads irrespective of the source from where the material was E brought. However, if ODA had refused to accept the stone aggregate brought to site by the contractor from a quarry in Delhi and insisted upon bringing the material from Nooh quarry, Haryana, the Contractor will be entitled to the extra lead for bringing the said material from Nooh. In the instant F case, there is nothing on record to show that the Department had insisted upon bringing the stone aggregate only from Nooh. Hence, the contractor will not be entitled to the increased rates for extra lead. Without a specific request or additional clause, the Arbitrator in G respect of Clctim Nos.· 1-3 and additional Claim Nos. 1-3

. proceeded on the wrong assumption that the Department had insisted upon the use of stone aggregate to be brought from Nooh, hence, the Single Judge of High Court is perfectly right in holding that there is an rror apparent on the face of the Award and the Award is liable H

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTH. v. MIS R.S. 789

SHARMA & CO., NEW DELHI

to be set aside. The Arbitrator ignored clause 3.16 of the A contract and made a departure from the contract while granting relief in respect of Claim Nos. 1-3.and additional Claim Nos. 1-3 and the same cannot be sustained; The judgment and order of Division Bench of High Court is set aside and the order of Single Judge of High Court is B restored. [Para 17] [803-G-H 804-A-D]

Case Law Reference

(2000) s sec 552

(2002) 4 sec 45

(2006) 1 sec 86

(2006) 4 sec 445

Relied on

Relied on

Relied on

Relied on

Para 8

Para 9

Para 10

Para 11

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2424

of 2002 D

From the final Judgment and Order dated 10.08.2001 of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in FAO (OS) No. 104 of 1996

Amarendra Sharan, ASG., V.B. Saharya, Viresh B. Saharya E and Amit Anand Tiwari (for Mis. Saharya & Co.) for the Appellant.

U.A. Rana, Abhishek Rao and Tarun Verma (Mis. Gagrat & Co.) for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by F

i P. SATHASIVAM, J. 1. This appeal, by special leave, is directed against the judgment and final order dated 10.8.2001 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in FAO(OS) No. 104 of 1996, whereby the Division Bench of the High Court had set aside he order passed by .the learned single Judge in G favour of the Delhi Development Authority.- the appellant herein -/;.. and directed that the Award passed by th~ Arbitrator be made a rule of tre Court.along with interest@ 12% p.a. from the date of the decree till the date of payment on the entire amount as awarded by the Arbitrator.

2. The facts, in a nutshell, are as under:

On 18.4.1990, an Agreement was entered into between the appellant-Delhi Development Authority {hereinafter referred to as "ODA") and the respondent - M/s R.S. Sharma & Go. (hereinafter referred to as "te Company") for carrying out the 8 work for development of the land at Pappankalan (Dwarka)

Project in South-West Delhi, Phase I according to the terms and conditions mentioned in the contract. On disputes having arisen during execution of the work, mainly with respect to the extra cartage, the same were referred to the Sole Arbitrator, C Shri A.P. Pa racer, Additional Director General (Retd.), C.P.W.D.,

for <; idjudiGation. During the pendency of the arbitration proceedings, the work was still being executed by the Company. 13 Claims (including additional claims) for a sum of Rs. 55.19 lacs approximately were raised by the Company before the D Arbitrator. Claim Nos. 1 to 3 were on account of extra lead

involved in procurement of stone aggregate specified in agreement Item No.2 i.e., s.upplying and stacking of graded stone aggregate of size range 90 mm to 40 mm at site. While additional Claim Nos. 1 to 3 pertain to extra lead involved in E bringing stone specified in agreement Item Nos. 3 & 4 i.e., supplying and stacking of stone screenings/chipping at site 12.5 mm nominal size. Under Claim. No.1, the respondent- . . ' Company claimed an extra amount of Rs.30/- per cubic meter over and above the rates mentioned in the Agreement Item F No.2 on account of extra lead involved in the procurement of the stone aggregates from te quarries at Nooh in Haryana instead of quarries at Delhi. Under Claim No.3, the respondent- Company sought declaratory Award to the effect that for all quantities of aggregate to be brought from Nooh in future, they G are entitled to additional lead @ Rs.30/- per cubic meter excluding the quantity already claimed under Claim No.2.

Similarly, under Additional claim Nos. 1 to 3, the respondent- Company claimed the rate of Rs.30 per cubic meter for extra lead involved in bringing stone, specified in agreement item Nos. 3 &4, from the quarries at Nooh (Haryana). On 29.7.1992, H

-.r- .,

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTH. v. MIS R.S. 791

-"(

SHARMA & CO., NEW DELHI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]

the Arbitrator made the Award in favour of respondent-Company.

A Suit No.2981 of 1992 was filed by the respondent-Company for making the Award a rule of the Court. Cross Objections were filed by ODA. On 25.9.1995, the learned single Judge of the Delhi High Court set aside the Award with respect to Claim -i Nos. 1 to 3 as well as Additional Claim Nos. 1 to 3 and made B the remaining part of the Award a rule of the Court and awarded ,,. .

interest @ 12% p:a. from the date of the decree till the date of payment by ODA. Aggrieved by the judgment of the learned single Judge, the Company filed FAO (OS) No.104 of 1996 before the Division Bench for setting aside the order to the extent it deals with Claim Nos. 1-3 and for making the Award c

dated 27.9.1992 a rule of the Court. The Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi, vide order dated 10.8.2001, set aside the order of the learned single Judge to the extent by which the Award of the Arbitrator on Claim Nos. 1 to 3 and Additional D 7 Clim Nos. 1 to 3 were set aside and the Award made by the

")t.- Arbifrator on aforesaid Claims were made a rule of the Court.

The "Respondent - Company was also awarded interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of tlecree till the date of payment on the entire amount as awarded by the Arbitrator. Aggrieved by the E said judgment, the present appeal is filed by DOA before this Court.

3. Heard Mr. Amarendra Sharan, learned Additional Solicitor General, appearing forthe appellant and Mr. U.A. Rana,

-.i. learned counsel, appearing for the respondent.

4. Mr. Amarendra Sharan, learned Additional Solicitor General, appearing for the appellant-Delhi Development Authority, vehemently contended that the Division Bench of the High Court was not justified in setting aside the order passed

. .A~ by the learned single Judge with respect to Cl.aim Nos. 1-3 and G ,__ ~

addit:onal claim Nos. 1-3 inasmuch as the Arbitrator had clearly failed to advert to clause 3.16 of the Agreement which does hot provide for extra cartage. According to him, clause 3.16 of the Agreement stipulates that the contrnctor is responsible for all the extra leads over and above the rate of payment specified H

A in the Agreement. He further contended that since the Arbitrator failed to take note of the. relevant condition, namely, clause 3.16, which prohibits extra cartage over and above the rate of payment specified in the Agreement, there is a clear error apparent on the face of the Award and liable to be set aside in B terms of Section 34(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). On the other hand, ;.,_ Mr. U.A. Rana, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, while supporting the order of the Division Bench contended that in viw of the fact that stone was brought from c Nooh in Haryana which was found to be more blue, better in appearance and quality, the Arbitrator was fully justified in making the Award in favour of the respondent herein on Claim Nos. 1- 3 and additional Claim Nos. 1-3. He also submitted that the Arbitrator is the. sole Judge of the quality as well as quantity of D evidence and the Courts cannot judge the evidence placed before the Arbitrator .. In the absence of plausible ground in terms of Section 34(2) of the Act, the learned single Judge is not

-'I.( justified in setting aside the award of the Arbitrator. Thereby, he prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

5. We have considered the rival contentions, perused the relevant materials including the terms bf the Agreement, award of the Arbitrator and the orders passed by the learned single . Judge as well as by the Division Bench of the High Court.

. .

6. The work re.lating to development of land at Pappankalan F (Dwarka) Project in South West Delhi, Phase-I was awarded under Agreement No. 6/EE/WD 10-A/90-91/DDA to Mis R.S.

Sharma & Co.- respondent herein. During the execution of the said work, certain disputes arose between the parties and ultimately they were referred to Mr. A.P. Paracer, Additional G Director General (Retd.) C.P.W.D. for adjudication. After adjudication, the Arbitrator, on 29.7.1992, made and published his Award. The said Award was filed in Court and after issuance of notice, DOA filed its objections. The main dispute relates to Claim Nos. 1-3 and additional Claim Nos. 1-3 wherein the H claimant had claimed extra rate of Rs.30/- per cubic meter over

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTH. v. MIS R.S. 793

SHARMA & CO., NEW DELHI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.] -y

and above the rate agreed to in the Agreement under Item Nos.

A 2, 3 and 4 for extra cartage involved in bringing the stone aggregate from Noah quarries to Delhi. According to the claimant, it was required to use Delhi quartz stone conforming to CPWD specifications and as the claimant had obtained blue

quartz stone from Noah quarries in Haryana and since DOA 8

1 . ,. had failed to indicate the approved quarry at Delhi for obtaining ' r supplies of Delhi quartz stone, the claimant was entitled to extra rates at the rate of Rs.30/-per cubic meter for procurement of stone aggregate from the quarries at Noah in Haryana.

According to DOA, the Arbitrator has misconstrued and misunderstood the Agreement between the parties, particularly, c

clause 3.16. Though the learned single Judge set aside the Award in respect of claim Nos. 1-3 and additional Claim Nos. 1-3 on the ground that there were no material be'fore the Arbitrator t6 accept those claims, the Division Bench, reversed D the same and confirmed the Award as granted by the Arbitrator.

'-;:,

7. In order to consider the rival contentions, it is useful to refer the relevant provisions of the Act. Chapter VII of the Act deals with 'Recourse against Arbitral Award'. Section 34 enumerates various grounds/circumstances on which the Award E can be set aside by the Court which reads as under:

"34. Application for setting aside arbltral award. -

(1) Recourse to a Court against an arbitral award may be made only by an application for setting aside such award in F accordance with sub-section (2) and subsection (3).

(2) An arbitral award may be set aside by the Court only if-

(a) The party making the application furnishes proof that-

(i) A party was under some incapacity, or G "-/';, (ii) The arbitration agreement is not valid under the law to which the parties have subjected it or, failing any indication thereon, under the law for the, time being in force; or H

(iii) The party making the application was not given proper notice oMhe appointment of an arbitrator or of the arbitral proceedings or was otherwise uriable to present his cc:tse; or -

(iv) The arbitral award deals with a dispute not contemplated by or not falling within the terms of the submission to arbitration, or it, contains decisions on matters beyond the scope of th~ submission to arbitration:

Provided that, if the decisions on matters submitted to arbitration can be separated from those riot so submitted, only that part of the arbitra1 award which contains dedsiohs on matters not submitted to arbitration may be set aside; or ·

(v) The composition of the arbitral tribunal or the arbitral procedure was not in accordance with the agreement of the parties, unless such agreement. was in conflict with a provision of this Part from ~

(b)

which the parties cannot derogate, or, failing such agreement, was not in accordance with this Part; or

The Court finds that-

(i) The subject-matter of the dispute is not capable of settlement by arbitration under the law for the time bei_ng in force, or .

(ii) The arbitral award is in conflict with the public policy of India.

Explanation. -Without prejudice to the generality of subclause (ii), it is hereby declared, for the avoidance of any doubt, that an award is in conflict with the public policy of India if the making of the award was induced or affected by fraud or corruption or was in violation of section 75 or_ section 81.

(3) An application for setting aside may not be made after ' three months have elapsed from the date on which the party

H making that application had received the arbitral award or. if '

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTH. v. M/S R.S. 795

SHARMA & CO., NEW DELHI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]

a request had been made under section 33, from the date on A which that request had been disposed of by the arbitral tribunal:

 Provided that ifthe Court is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from making the application within the said period of three months it may entertain the ,

application within a . further period of thirty days, but not B

fuereafte~ ·

(4) On receipt of an application under sub-section (1 }, the Court may, where it is appropriate and it is so requested by a party, adjourn the proceedings for a period of time determined by it in order to give the arbitral tribunal an opportunity to

C .. resume the arbitral proceedings or to take such other action as in the opinion of arbitral tribunal will eliminate the grounds for setting aside the arbitral award."

8. The grounds/ circumstances mentioned in subsection(2) of Section 34 have been considered by this Court in D various decisions. In Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd. & Anr. vs . . Balasore Technical School, (2000) 9 SCC 552, this Court in paragraph 3 held as under:

"3. In this case, the High Court is of the view that a civil court E does not sit in apReal against the award and the power of the court when an award is challenged is rather limited. The award of the arbitrator is ordinarily final and conclusive as long as the arbitrator has acted within his authority and according to the principle of fair play. An arbitrator's adjudication is generally

considered binding between the parties for he is a tribunal F selected by the parties and the power of the court to set aside the award is restricted to cases set out in Section 30 of the Arbitration Act. It is not open to the court to speculate where no reasons are given by the arbitrator, as to what impelled him to arrive at his conclusion. If the dispute is within the G scope of the arbitration clause it is no part of the province of the court to enter into the merits of the dispute. If the award goes beyond the reference or there s an error apparent on the face of the award it would certainly be open to the court to interfere with such an award. In New India Civil Erectors H

(P) Ltd. v. Oil & Natural Gas Corpn.(1997) 11 sec 75 this Court considered a case of a non-speaking award. In that case the arbitrator had acted contrary to the specific stipulation/ condition contained in the agreement between the parties. It was held that the arbitrator being a creature of the contract must operate within the four corners of the contract and cannot travel beyond it and he cannot award any amount which is ruled out or prohibited by the terms of the agreement. In that contract it was provided that for construction of a housing unit, in measuring the built-up area, balcony areas should be excluded. However, the arbitrator included the same which washeld to be withoutjutisdiction; In the same manner it was also held that the price would be firm and not subject to any escalation under whatsoever ground till the cotnpletibn of the work and awarding any sum as a result of escalation was not permissible. To the satne effect is the decision in Associated EEngg. Co. v. Govt. of A.P (1991) 4 SCC 93. It was stated that if the arbitrator commits an error in the construction of the contract, that is an error within his jurisdiction. But if he wander$ outside the contract and deals with matters not allotted to him; he commits a jurisdictional error and an umpire or arbitrator cannot Widen his jurisdiction by deciding a question not referred to him by the parties or by deciding a question otherwise than in accordance with the contract. A conscious disregard of the law or the provisions of the contract from which he has derived his authority vitiates the award. The principle of law stated in N. Chel/appan case on which strong reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the respondent would make it clear that except in Ci:ases of jurisdictional errors it is not open to the court to interfere with an award. That proposition is unexceptionable. However, from a reading of the decisions of this Court referred to earlier it is clear that when an award is made plainly contrary to the terms of the contract not by misinterpretation b'ut which is

plainly contrary to the terms of the.contract it would certainly lead to an inference that there is an error apparent on the face of the award which results in jurisdictional error iii the award.

In such a case the courts can certainly interfere with the award made by the arbitrator."

.r--

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTH. v. MIS R.S. 797

SHARMA & CO., NEW DELHI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]

---J

9. In General Manager, Northern Railway & anr. vs.

A Sarvesh Chopra, (2fJ02) 4 SCC 45, it is worthwhile to refer the following conclusion as observed in paragraph 10 as under:

"10. It was next submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that if this Court was not inclined to agree with the 8 submission of the learned counsel for the respondent and the

--4interpretation sought to be placed by him on the meaning of "excepted matter" then whether or not the claim raised by the contractor is an "excepted matter" should be left to be determined by the arbitrator. It was submitted by him that while dealing with a petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration c Act, 1940 the court should order the agreement to be filed and make an order of reference to the arbitrator appointed by the parties leaving it open for the arbitrator to adjudicate whether a claim should be held to be not entertainable or awardable, being an "excepted matter". With this submission too we find D it difficult to agree. While dealing with a petition under Section 7 20, the court has to examine: (1) whether there is an arbitration

¥ agreement between the parties, (i1) whether the difference which has arisen is one to which the arbitration agreement applies, and (iii) whether there is a cause, shown to be sufficient, to decline an order of reference to the arbitrator.

E The word "agrement" finding place in the expression "where

.· a differenc.e has arisen to which the agreement applies", in sub-section (1) of Section 20 means "arbitration agreement": The reference to an arbitrator on a. petition filed under Section 20 is not a function to be discharged mechanically or F ministerially by the court; it is a consequence of judicial determination, the court having applied its mind to the requirements of Section 20 and formed an opinion, that the difference sought to be referred to arbitral adjudication is one to which the arbitration agreement applies. In the case of Food Corpn. of India relied on by the learned counsel for the G +- respondent, it has been held as t_he consistent view of this ·--.. ;,, Court that in the event of the claims arising within the ambit of "excepted matters", the question of assumption of jurisdiction by any arbitrator either with or without the intervention of the court would not arise. In Union of India v.

A Popular Builders (2000) 8 SCC 1 and Steel Authority of India r

Ltd. v, J.C. Budharaja, Govt. aod Mining Contractor ( 1999) 8 SCC 122, Ch. Ra_malinga Reddy v. Superintending Engineer ( 1999) 9 SCC 610 (para 18) and Alopi Pars had and Sons Ltd.

v. Union of India (1962) 2 SCR 793 at p. 804 this Court has

B unequivocally expressed that an award by an arbitrator over a claim which was not arbitrable as per the terms of the contract entered into betweer:) the parties wouJd be liable to ~~ be set aside. In Prabartak Commercial Corpn. Ltd. v. Chief Administrator, Dandakaranya Project (1991) 1 SC9 498 a claim covered by "excepted matter" was referred to_ the c arbitrator in spite of such reference having been objected to and the arbitrator gave an award. This Court held that the . . arbitrator had no jurisdiction in the matter and that the reference

j1 ' of the dispute to the arbitrator was invalid and the entire L proceedings before the arbitrator including the awards made ,.

D by him were null and void."

10. In State of Rajasthan vs. Nav Bharat Construction "- Co., (2006) 1 SCC 86, this Court in paragraph 27 held as ::.,( under:

"27. There can be no dispute to the well-established principle set out in these cases. However, these cases do not detract from the law laid down in Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. case or Continental Construction Co. Ltd. case. An arbitrator cannot go beyond the terms of the contract between the parties. In

the guise of doing justice he cannot award contrary to the F terms of the contract. If he does so, he will have misconducted himself. Of course if an interpretation of a term of the contract ~- is involved then the interpretation of the arbitrator must be accepted uriless it is one Which could not be reasonably possible. However, where the term of the contract is clear

G and unambiguous the arbitrator cannot ignore it.".

11. In Hindustan Zinc Ltd. vs. Friends Coal Carbonisation, ...),..

(2006) '4 sec 445, the following principles laid down in

\.... V'

paragraphs 13 and 14 are relevant for the disposal of the present case:

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTH. v. M/S RS. 799 SHARMf. & CO., NEW DELHI [P. SA~HASIVAM, J.]

"13. This Court in ONGC Ltd. vJ Saw Pipes Ltd. (2003) 5 SCC A 705 held that an award contrary to substantive provisions of law or the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 or against the terms of the contract, would be patently illegal, and if it affects. the rights of the parties, open to interference by the court under Section 34(2) of the Act. This 8 Court observed: (SCC pp. 718 & 727-28, paras 13 & 31)

"13. The question, therefore, which requires consideration is-whether the award could be set aside, if the Arbitral Tribunal has not followed the mandatory procedure prescribed under Sections 24, 28 or 31 (3), which affects the rights of the parties.

C Under sub-section (1)(a) of Section 28 there is a mandate to the Arbitral Tribunal to decide the dispute in accordance with the substantive law for the time being in force in India.

Admittedly, substantive law would include the Indian Contract Act, the Transfer of Property Act and other such laws in force.

Suppose, if the award is passed in violation of the provisions D of the Transfer of Property Act or in violation of the Indian Contract Act, the question would be-whether such award could be set aside. Similarly, under sub-section (3), the Arbitral Tribunal is.directed to decide the dispute in accordance with the terms of the contract and also after taking into account E the usage of the trade applicable to the transaction. If the Arbitral Tribunal ignores the terms of the contract or usage of the trade applicable to the transaction, whether the said award could be interfered. Similarly, iMhe award is a non-speaking one and is in violation of Section 31 (3), can such award be set aside? In our view, reading Section 34 conjointly with F other provisions of the Act, it appears that the legislative intent could not be that if the award is in contravention of the provisions of the Act, still however, it couldn't be set aside by the court. If it is held that such award could not be interfered~

it would be contrary to the basic concept of justice. If the G Arbitral Tribunal has not followed the mandatory procedure prescribed under the Act, it would mean that it has acted beyond its jurisdiction and thereby the award would be patently illegal which could be set aside under Section 34.

* * * H

I 31 . ... in our view, the phrase 'public policy of India' used in Section 34 in context is required to be given a wider meaning.

It can be stated that the concept of public policy connotes some matter which concerns public good and the public . interest. What is for public good or in public interest or what would be injurious or harmful to the public good or public interest has varied from time to time. However, the award which is, on the face of it, patently in violation of statutory provisions cannot be said to be in public interest. Such award/ judgment/decision is likely to adversely affect the administration of justice. Hence, in our view. in addition to . narrower meaning given to the term "public policy" in Renusagar case, it is required to be held that the award could be set aside if it is patently illegal. The result would beaward could be set aside if it is contrary to:

(a) fundamental policy of Indian law; or

(b) the interest of India; or

.J ·

(c) justice or morality; or

(d) in addition, if it is patently illegal.

E Illegality must go to the root of the matter and if the illegality is of trivial nature it canhot be held that award is against the public policy. Award could also be set aside if it is so unfair and unreasonable that it shocks the conscience of the court.

Such award is opposed to public policy and is required to be p a_djudged void."

14. The High Court did not have the benefit of the principles laid down in Saw Pipes, and had proceeded on the assumption that award cannot be interfered with even if it was contrary to the terms of the contract. It went to the extent of holding that contract terms cannot even be looked into for examining the correctness of the award. This Court in Saw Pipes has made it clear that it is open to the court to -consider whether the award is against the specific terms of contract and if so, interfere with it on the ground that it is patently illegal and opposed to the public policy of India." ·

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTH. v. M/S R.S. 801

SHARMA & CO., NEW DELHI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]

12. From the above decisions, the following principles A emirrge:

(a) An Award, which is

(i) _contrary to substantive provisions of law ; or

(ii) the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation B

.I Act, 1996 ; or

(iii) against the terms of the respective contract ; or

(iv) patently illegal, or c /"_. (v) prejudicial to the rights of the parties,

is open to interference by the Court under Section 34(2) of the Act.

(b) Award could be set aside if it is contrary to : D .,

(a} fundamental policy of Indian Law; or ...

¥ (b) the interest of India; or

(c) justice or morality;

(c) The Award could also be set aside if it is so unfair E

and unreasonable that it shocks the conscience of the Court.

(d) It is open to the Court to consider whether the Award is against the specific terms of contract and if so, F interfere with it on the ground that it is patently illegal and opposed to the public policy of India.

13. With these principles and statutory provisions, particularly, Section 34(2) of the Act, let us consider whether the Arbitrator as well as the Division Bench 6fthe High Court were G ._, l, justified in granting the Award in respect of Claim Nos. 1-3 and -..- ...;.

additional Claim Nos. 1-3 of the claimant or the appellant-DOA has made out a case for setting aside the Award in respect of

... ··- ~' those claims with reference to the terms of the Agreement duly executed by both parties.

___._ -- /-' - - -·

.. . .e::.


14. The main di.spute relates to extra cartage that is, stone brought from Nooh, Haryana. It is the stand of the claimant that apart from the Agreement dated .18.4.1990, both parties were agreed to abide by the conditions mentioned in the letter dated 10.4.1990 of the claimant - 'M/s R.S. Sharma & Co. to the s Chief Engineer (WZ), ODA, Vikas Minar"' New Delhi. In

paragraph 6 of the said letter, it was ·stated as under:

 "6. We will use Delhi Quart? stone as per CPWD specifications and speCifications mentioned in the tender<aocuments. This condition has been accepted .by the Department in the case .of 1st lowest tenderer for this work."

15. It is stated by the learned counsel appearing for the claimant that since the ODA 'has nqt apprpved Delhi Quartz stone which was not as per CPWD specifications and specifications mentioned in the tender document, stones were D brought

from Nooh, Haryana which satisfied those specifications. As' rightly pointed 'out by the learned ASG appearing for ODA, there is no specific clause in the terms of agreement for extra cartge for bringing stones from elsewhere.

In this regard, the appellant heavily relied on clause 3.16 of the E Agreement which reads as under:.

"3.16- The-collection and stacking of material shall include all leads. The rates quoted by the contractor shall hold good irrespective of the sot, Jrce from which the.material are brought so long as they conform to tl:)e specifications. The closure of particular quarry will not entitle the contracto[ to any revision in the rates."

16. The perusal of the Award of the Arbitrator as well as the judgment of the Division Bench clearly shows that they did G not advert to the above clause 3.16. it is releva; nt to ppint out that the extra cartage has beem warded by ttieArbitratotwithout adverting to clause 3.16 of the Agreement, hence, thelearned ' single Judge was wholly justified in partially setting aside .he

Award in respect of the clai.ms with respect tp tpe extra ca.ftage.

H we also perused the pleadings and evidence: piaced on record

.. .,.

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTH. v. M/S R.S. 803

SHARMA & CO., NEW DELHI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]

pertaining to Claim Nos. 1-3 and additional Claim Nos. 1-3. As A rightly observed by the learned single Judge, there was no material on record to substantiate the case of the claimant, viz., DOA had 'insisted upon the claimant for using the stone aggregates brought from Noah in Haryana. In those circumstances and of the fact that the terms and conditions of B J the Agreement are binding on both the parties, in the absence of specific clause with regard to payment of extra cartage and in view of clause 3.16, the respondent-claimant cannot claim extra cartage @ Rs.30/- per cubic meter on the ground of extra lead involved in bringing the stone aggregates from Noah in c

( Haryana. The Division Bench like the Arbitrator proceeded on the sole basis that ODA had compelled the claimant-Company from bringing te stone aggregates from Noah in Haryana and committed an error in. affirming the erroneous conclusion arrived at by the Arbitrator insofar as the additional claims are D < .. concerned. As rightly pointed out by the learned Additi0nal "

Solicitor General, the Division Bench proceeded on an erroneous premise that the appellant-DOA has nowhere stipulated where the stone was to be brought from. It is true that DOA had given certain specifications required to be conformed. E Further, the cot of the work was irrespective of the source or lead from where the stone was brought. The award is completely silent on the relevant clause viz. clause 3.16 of the Agreement which makes it clear _that the contractor is wholly responsible for all the extra leads. In fact, the Arbitrator has given no reason whatsoe.ver so far as the rate claimed for the extra lead by the F claimant and has verbatim accepted the claim without giving any justification for the same. We are satisfied that this is an error apparent on the face of the record as well as contrary to the terms of the Agreement.

17. For the sake of brevity, we point out that in terms of G -Ii-. ......,, .....

clause 3.16 of the Contract, it is the responsibility of the Contractor to collect and stock the material and the rates quoted , by him including all leads irrespective of the source from where the material was brougbt: However, if DDA had refused to accept H

A the stone aggregate brought to site by the contractor from a 'r

quarry in Delhi and insisted upon bringing the material from Nooh quarry, Haryana, the Contractor will be entitled to the extra lead for bringing the said material from Nooh. As rightly pointed out by learned counsel for the appellant, in the present

B case, there is nothing on record to show that the Department had insisted upon bringing the stone aggregate only from Nooh.

"""---- Hence, the contractor will not be entitled to the increased rates for extra lead. Without a specific request or additional clause, the Arbitrator in respect of Claim Nos. 1-3 and additional Claim c Nos. 1-3 proceeded on the wrong assumption that the Department had insisted upon the use of stone aggregate to be brought from Nooh, hence, the learned single Judge is perfectly right in holding that there is an error apparent on the face of the Award and the Award is liable to be set aside. As

D stated earlier, the Arbitrator has ignored clause 3.16 of the contract and made a departure from the contract while granting ... relief in respect of Claim Nos. 1-3 and additional Claim Nos. 1- '"" 3 and the same, in our view, cannot be sustained. -,_

18. Under these circumstances, we-allow the appeal of E DOA and set aside the judgment and order dated 10.8.2001

passed by the Division Bench in FAQ (OS) No. 104 of 199F and restore the order of the learned single Judge insofar as Claim Nos. 1-3 and additional Claim Nos. 1-3 are concerrir .;.

There shall be no order as to costs.

N.J.

Appeal allowed.