Prem Saluja Vs. Delhi Development Authority and anr.

Prem Saluja vs Delhi Development Authority and anr.

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided Jan 28, 2002

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/684289

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/684289
Court: Delhi High Court
Judge: J.D. Kapoor, J.
Decided On: Jan 28, 2002
Case Number: Suit No. 4124/92
Subject: Arbitration

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Arbitration Act, 1940 - Sections 30 & 33--Objections--Award filed in the Court under Section 14 to make it the rule of the Court--Award should not be interfered unless it sutlers from the vice of perversity--Court does not sit in appeal--Sanctity of award should be preserved unless the arbitrator has gone beyond...

Key legal issue: Arbitration
Acts & sections: Arbitration Act, 1940 - Sections 14

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Prem Saluja

Advocate B.K. Dewan, Adv

Respondent

Delhi Development Authority and anr.

Advocate Anusuya Salwan, Adv.

Legal References

Acts: Arbitration Act, 1940 - Sections 14
Reported In: 2002VIIAD(Delhi)536; 2002(1)ARBLR557(Delhi); 96(2002)DLT628; 2002(62)DRJ11

Excerpt

arbitration act, 1940 - sections 30 & 33--objections--award filed in the court under section 14 to make it the rule of the court--award should not be interfered unless it sutlers from the vice of perversity--court does not sit in appeal--sanctity of award should be preserved unless the arbitrator has gone beyond the terms of the arbitration agreement or his conclusion is highly unsound--award does not suffer from any infirmity legal or tactual--objections dismissed.; the sanctity of the award should always be preserved unless the arbitrator has either gone beyond the terms of the agreement on contract on has tied himself to such a legal proposition which when examined is found to be completely unsound. otherwise, even erroneous view taken by the arbitrator either on factual matrix or as to the interpretation of the terms of the agreement should not be upset. - - the only objection is that the arbitrator did not consider that the petitioner had failed to rectify the defects which were pointed out in the completion certificate......re-assess or re-evaluate the evidence or material on which the arbitrator has based the findings, unless it is found that the arbitrator has completely ignored the materialdocuments which if taken into consideration could have tilted the award in favor of the aggrieved party. the sanctity of the ward should always be preserved unless the arbitrator has either gone beyond the terms of the agreement or contract or has tied himself to such a legal proposition which when examined is found to be completely unsound. otherwise, even erroneous view taken by the arbitrator either on factual matrix or as to the interpretation of the terms of the agreement should not beupset. let us examine the award on the anvil of above tests.3. claim no. 1 is towards refund of security deposit. the only objection is that the arbitrator did not consider that the petitioner had failed to rectify the defects which were pointed out in the completion certificate. similarly claim no. 2 pertains to refund of rs. 10,000/- which were withheld for no reason.4. as is apparent from the award, the findings of the arbitrator are purely findings of facts and pertain to those items which the petitioner was entitled to seek refund. the award does not suffer from any infirmity- legal or factual. the objections have no merit at all and are hereby dismissed.5. award dated 25.9.1992 is made rule of the court. as a consequence, suit is decreed for rs. 76,384/- with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the award till its realisation. security deposit amounting to rs. 62,126/- which is lying with the respondents in the shape of f.d.r. be also released.

Full Judgment

J.D. Kapoor, J.

1. On filing the petition under Section 14 of theArbitration Act, 1940 for making the award dated 25th September, 1992 rule of the court, notice was issued to respondent-DDA. The award has been challenged by way of objection filed through I.A.1913/98.

2. It is settled proposition that award should not be interferred unless it suffers from the vice of perversity. The court does not sit in appeal and as such, the court should not re-appreciate, re-assess or re-evaluate the evidence or material on which the Arbitrator has based the findings, unless it is found that the Arbitrator has completely ignored the materialdocuments which if taken into consideration could have tilted the award in favor of the aggrieved party. The sanctity of the ward should always be preserved unless the Arbitrator has either gone beyond the terms of the agreement or contract or has tied himself to such a legal proposition which when examined is found to be completely unsound. Otherwise, even erroneous view taken by the Arbitrator either on factual matrix or as to the interpretation of the terms of the agreement should not beupset. Let us examine the award on the anvil of above tests.

3. Claim no. 1 is towards refund of security deposit. The only objection is that the Arbitrator did not consider that the petitioner had failed to rectify the defects which were pointed out in the completion certificate. Similarly claim no. 2 pertains to refund of Rs. 10,000/- which were withheld for no reason.

4. As is apparent from the award, the findings of the Arbitrator are purely findings of facts and pertain to those items which the petitioner was entitled to seek refund. The award does not suffer from any infirmity- legal or factual. The objections have no merit at all and are hereby dismissed.

5. Award dated 25.9.1992 is made rule of the court. As a consequence, suit is decreed for Rs. 76,384/- with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the award till its realisation. Security deposit amounting to Rs. 62,126/- which is lying with the respondents in the shape of F.D.R. be also released.

Same Court & Year Delhi · 2002 Same Parties Prem Saluja vs Delhi Development Authority and anr. Same Subject Arbitration Same Judge J.D. Kapoor, J. Acts & Sections Arbitration Act, 1940 - Sections 14

Arbitration security deposit aggrieved party Arbitration Act The agreement per annum Has been