Judgment:
C.M. Nayar, J.
(1) The Arbitrator has filed the Award dated September 2,1984 Along with the proceedings in this Court. The same were taken on record and notice of filing of the Award was issued to the parties directing them to file their respective objections. Respondent-international Airport Authority of India filed its objectors under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act. Reply to these objections was filed by the claimant M/s. Trakru Projects India Private Limited. The Arbitrator made a speaking Award by assigning reasons.
(2) Shri J.S. Marya was appointed as Sole Arbitrator by Chief Engineer, New International Air Terminal Complex, International Airport Authority of India to decide the disputes which had arisen between the parties by virtue of powers conferred under the provisions of Clause 25 of the Agreement NO. NITC/APD-1/ 13/82-83 executed between the parties. Clause 25 of the Agreement stipulated that the disputes arising between the parties shall be referred to the sole arbitration of the person appointed by the Chief Engineer, International Airports Authority of India, in-charge of the work at the time of dispute or if there be no Chief Engineer the Administrative Head of the Department of Engineering of said Authority at the time of such appointment. It further stated that in all cases where the amount of the claim in dispute is Rs.50,000.00 and above, the Arbitrator shall give reasons for the award. The following claims were raised before the Arbitrator :
'CLAIMNo. 1 - For extra cost involved for getting the electric connection due to change of site from the main road to interior adjacent to the Cargo building. Claim No. 2 - Claim for extra expenditure due to non approval of water for nine months. Claim No. 3 - Claim for idle wages of the staff for four months due to non availability of drawings. Claim No. 4 - Claim for idle wages of labour for four months due to nonavailability of drawings. Claim No. 5 - For extra for relaying the steel reinforcement in raft foundation due to change in the reinforcement schedule. Claim No. 6 - Cost of relaying the centring and shuttering in row Nos.1 and 2 due to rains. Claim No. 7 - Claim for idle wages of the staff and workers due to non-issue of materials. Claim No. 8 - Claim due to deduction of mobilisation advance before time than stipulated in the agreement. Claim No. 9 - Claim for difference in rate of bricks brought at site arid material lying at site etc. Claim No.1O(a) - Payment of extra item for cartage of surplus of earth work. Claim No.1O(b) - Payment of extra item on account of hard soil. Claim No.1O(c) - Payment for extra item for removal of Malba. Claim No.1O(d) - Payment of extra item for washing of coarse sand. Claim No.1O(e) - Payment of extra item for use of cement shurry. Claim No.11(a) and (b) - Claim for escalation payable as difference of price index and escalation in the price of coarse sand due to closure of bhatti mines. Claim No.12 - Claim for depreciation of machinery in idle months. Claim No.13 - Claim for difference in measurements. Claim No.14 - Claim for difference in rates. Claim No.15 - Claim for restriction of hours of working. Claim No.16 - Claim for expected profits.
The respondent-international Airports Authority of India has filed objections under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act to the Award. Reply to the objections has also been filed by the petitioner-claimant. Affidavit in evidence is filed by Shri K.C. Gupta, Executive Engineer (Civil) New International Terminal Complex, International Airports Authority of India. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties in detail. The Award is made in respect of the claims as referred to above.
(3) The learned Counsel for the Objector has contended that the Arbitrator has not assigned any cogent grounds and has decided the matter on non-existent considerations. The reading of the award will indicate that the Arbitrator has elaborately dealt with each of the claims and has given his findings on the basis of appreciation of evidence on record. The matter was dealt with by the Arbitrator on number of dates and no valid reasons have been assigned at the time of arguments to impugn the findings which have been arrived at by the learned Arbitrator. The law is well settled that where the reasons have been given by the Arbitrator in making the award the Court cannot examine the reasonableness and sufficiency of the reasons. The Arbitrator is the Sole Judge of the quality as well as the quantity of evidence and it will not be for the Court to take upon itself the task of being a Judge on the evidence before the Arbitrator. This was so stated by the Supreme Court in B.V. Radha Krishna v. Sponge Iron India Ltd., 1997(1) A LR 412. The individual claims have been discussed in detail and it will not be open for this Court to reappraise the facts and evidence on record and substitute its own conclusions. The findings of the Arbitrator are with regard to appreciation of evidence which are clearly outside the ambit of Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940.
(4) In view of the above, the objections as raised by the respondent/Objector are without force and accordingly are rejected. The Award dated September 2,1984 is made Rule of the Court. The petitioner shall pay the amount awarded within one week from today failing which the claimant shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum from the date of decree till realisation. There will be no order as to costs.