Union of India Vs. Dien Enterprises

Union of India vs Dien Enterprises

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided Apr 26, 1995

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/690619

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/690619
Court: Delhi High Court
Judge: Jaspal Singh, J.
Decided On: Apr 26, 1995
Case Number: Interim Application No. 6618 of 1994 and Suit No. 505A of 1984
Subject: Arbitration

Case Summary

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

Arbitration Act 1940 - Section 30--Objections to the award of arbitrator--Interference with the Findings of arbitrator--Scope of--The findings of arbitrator are not open to challenge on the ground that he has reached a wrong conclusion or that he has failed to appreciate the facts. - - His findings are not open to...

Key legal issue: Arbitration
Acts & sections: Arbitration Act, 1940 - Sections 30

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Union of India

Advocate Sandeep Agarwal and; Rajesh Bhatia, Advs

Respondent

Dien Enterprises

Legal References

Acts: Arbitration Act, 1940 - Sections 30
Cases Referred: Daman & Diu Housing Board v. Ramakant V.P. Darvotkar Air
Reported In: 1996(36)DRJ28

Excerpt

arbitration act 1940 - section 30--objections to the award of arbitrator--interference with the findings of arbitrator--scope of--the findings of arbitrator are not open to challenge on the ground that he has reached a wrong conclusion or that he has failed to appreciate the facts. - - his findings are not open to challenge either on the ground that he has reached a wrong conclusion or on the ground that he has failed to appreciate facts (see m/s......be allowed. (3) as would be borne out from the award itself all these points have been taken into consideration by the arbitrator. as per the arbitrator there had been too much delay on the part of the consignee in doing his part of the job due to which final inspection could not take place. he has further held that warranty period expired on march 9, 1977 and that consequently the claimant-contractor could not be held liable beyond the warranty period. he has also taken hole of letters of 21st april, 1978 and 11th may, 1978 and other documents 10 show that the plant had been erected and commissioned.(4) the arbitrator has returned his findings on consideration of the material on record. his findings are not open to challenge either on the ground that he has reached a wrong conclusion or on the ground that he has failed to appreciate facts (see m/s. hindustan tea co. v. k. sashikant & co. & anr. : air 1987 sc81 ). the award makes it clear that the arbitrator has considered all the issues raised by the parties. he has recorded his findings after giving cogent reasons. it cannot thus be said that le has misconducted himself or in the proceedings (see :goa, daman & diu housing board v. ramakant v.p. darvotkar air 1991 sc 2079. (5) for the reasons recorded above i find no force in the objections raised. the award is made a rule of the court and decree is passed in terms thereof.

Full Judgment

Jaspal Singh, J.

(1) The objector seeks to get the Award set aside and it was on account of its objections that following issues were framed :

1. Whether the award is liable to be set aside for any of the reasons mentioned by the petitioner ?

2.Relief.

(2) The learned counsel for the objector submits that the Arbitrator has gone wrong inasmuch as he did not consider that the plant erected by the claimants suffered from number of defects and this final inspection was never done. He has further submitted that the claimant had greed to supply more equipment which was never done and that this fact was also not taken into consideration by the Arbitrator. The last contention is that the plant was never commissioned and that consequently no commissioning charges could be allowed.

(3) As would be borne out from the Award itself all these points have been taken into consideration by the Arbitrator. As per the Arbitrator there had been too much delay on the part of the consignee in doing his part of the job due to which final inspection could not take place. He has further held that warranty period expired on March 9, 1977 and that consequently the claimant-contractor could not be held liable beyond the warranty period. He has also taken hole of letters of 21st April, 1978 and 11th May, 1978 and other documents 10 show that the plant had been erected and commissioned.

(4) The Arbitrator has returned his findings on consideration of the material on record. His findings are not open to challenge either on the ground that he has reached a wrong conclusion or on the ground that he has failed to appreciate facts (See M/s. Hindustan Tea Co. v. K. Sashikant & Co. & Anr. : AIR 1987 SC81 ). The Award makes it clear that the Arbitrator has considered all the issues raised by the parties. He has recorded his findings after giving cogent reasons. It cannot thus be said that Le has misconducted himself or in the proceedings (See :Goa, Daman & Diu Housing Board v. Ramakant V.P. Darvotkar Air 1991 Sc 2079.

(5) For the reasons recorded above I find no force in the objections raised. The Award is made a rule of the Court and decree is passed in terms thereof.

Same Court & Year Delhi · 1995 Same Parties Union of India vs Dien Enterprises Same Subject Arbitration Same Judge Jaspal Singh, J. Acts & Sections Arbitration Act, 1940 - Sections 30

Arbitration