Hindustan Prefab Ltd. Vs. Dosajh and Co. and S.P. Kapil, Special Engineer (Slum) and Arbitrator Delhi Development Authority

Hindustan Prefab Ltd. vs Dosajh and Co. and S.P. Kapil, Special Engineer (Slum) and Arbitrator Delhi Development Authority

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided Apr 12, 2004

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/687132

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/687132
Court: Delhi High Court
Judge: Madan B. Lokur, J.
Decided On: Apr 12, 2004
Case Number: FAO No. 317 of 1983
Subject: Arbitration

Case Summary

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

Key legal issue: Arbitration
Acts & sections: Arbitration Act, 1940 - Sections 14, 17, 30 and 33; Evidence Act

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Hindustan Prefab Ltd.

Advocate Keshav Dayal, Sr. Adv. and; Prahlad Dayal, Adv

Respondent

Dosajh and Co. and S.P. Kapil, Special Engineer (Slum) and Arbitrator Delhi Development Authority

Advocate Savita Malhotra, Adv.

Legal References

Acts: Arbitration Act, 1940 - Sections 14, 17, 30 and 33; Evidence Act
Reported In: 2004(2)ARBLR91(Delhi); 111(2004)DLT182

Excerpt

- .....were referred for arbitration on 6th february 1980 to respondent no.2 as the sole arbitrator. the learned arbitrator entered upon reference on 5th september 1980 and gave his award on 29th march 1982. the award was a non-speaking award.3. respondent no.1 filed a petition under sections 14 and 17 of the arbitration act, 1940 (the act) for making the award a rule of the court. the appellant filed objections under sections 30 and 33 of the act but the learned additional district judge dismissed them by his order dated 3rd september 1983, which is impugned in the present appeal. 4. when the appeal came up for hearing before a learned single judge on 29th october 1984, it was observed that no oral evidence was led before the learned arbitrator, but a few documents had been filed along with the pleadings. these documents, however, were neither proved nor tendered nor admitted by the parties. i may add that the parties did not deny these documents.5. the learned single judge had some reservations whether it was possible to uphold an award, which was not based on any evidence, oral or documentary. accordingly, the learned single judge referred the matter to a larger bench for a decision on this question.6. a division bench thereafter heard the appeal on 22nd april 1991 and was of the view that the only question for consideration was whether a non-speaking award can be set aside because it is not based on any evidence, oral or documentary. by an order of the same date, the division bench has per the evidence act so long as there is some material before him which can constitute evidence that can be taken into account by the learned arbitrator, it must be held that there is no merit in the appeal. consequently, i find no error in the view taken by the learned additional district judge to the same effect. no other point was urged before me.7. the appeal is dismissed, but there will be no order as to costs.

Full Judgment

Madan B. Lokur, J.

1. The Appellant is aggrieved by judgment and order dated 3rd September 1983 passed by the learned Additional District Judge in Suit No.215/1982.

2. Certain disputes arose between the Appellant and Respondent No.1. These disputes pertained to two separate contracts relating to foundation work of foot over bridge at Patel Marg and Nazafgarh Road. The disputes between the parties were referred for arbitration on 6th February 1980 to Respondent No.2 as the sole Arbitrator. The learned Arbitrator entered upon reference on 5th September 1980 and gave his Award on 29th March 1982. The Award was a non-speaking Award.

3. Respondent No.1 filed a petition under Sections 14 and 17 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (the Act) for making the Award a rule of the Court. The Appellant filed objections under Sections 30 and 33 of the Act but the learned Additional District Judge dismissed them by his order dated 3rd September 1983, which is impugned in the present appeal.

4. When the appeal came up for hearing before a learned Single Judge on 29th October 1984, it was observed that no oral evidence was led before the learned Arbitrator, but a few documents had been filed along with the pleadings. These documents, however, were neither proved nor tendered nor admitted by the parties. I may add that the parties did not deny these documents.

5. The learned Single Judge had some reservations whether it was possible to uphold an Award, which was not based on any evidence, oral or documentary. Accordingly, the learned Single Judge referred the matter to a larger Bench for a decision on this question.

6. A Division Bench thereafter heard the appeal on 22nd April 1991 and was of the view that the only question for consideration was whether a non-speaking Award can be set aside because it is not based on any evidence, oral or documentary. By an order of the same date, the Division Bench has per the Evidence Act so long as there is some material before him which can constitute evidence that can be taken into account by the learned Arbitrator, it must be held that there is no merit in the appeal. Consequently, I find no error in the view taken by the learned Additional District Judge to the same effect. No other point was urged before me.

7. The appeal is dismissed, but there will be no order as to costs.

Same Court & Year Delhi · 2004 Same Parties Hindustan Prefab Ltd. vs Dosajh and Co. and S.P. Kapil, Speci... Same Subject Arbitration Same Judge Madan B. Lokur, J. Acts & Sections Arbitration Act, 1940 - Sections 14, 17, 30 and 33; Evidence Act

Arbitration