S.D.Pandit - (1.)The present petition is filed by Shri Hansraj, sole proprietor of Hansraj Construction Company to direct the respondent No. 3, S. Nagrajan to produce the award and proceedings of the award and to make the award the Rule of the Court.
(2.)The work of 960 Janta houses in Block-IV, Lawrence Road, Delhi was awarded by respondents 1 & 2 to the petitioner by Agreement No. 11/EE-HDV/ A/81-82. As regards the said work certain disputes had arisen between the parties and as per the agreement between the parties respondent No. 3. Mr. S. Nagrajan was appointed as the sole Arbitrator. The said Arbitrator entered upon reference on 16.7.87 and published his Award on 27.11.1990.
(3.)After the petitioner had filed the present petition notices were served on respondents 1 to 3. Inpursuance of the notice served on defendant No. 3, defendant No. 3 filed his award and proceedings of arbitration in the Court and, thereafter, the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 filed IA. 3055/91 under Sections 30 & 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 raising various objections. It is contended on behalf of the respondent that Arbitrator had ignored the material on record and had misinterpreted the various provisions of the contract between the parties. They further contended that the Arbitrator had misconducted himself as he failed to give reasons for his award though under clause 25 of the agreement the was to give reasons. It is also contended that the reasons are necessary in order to indicate the trend iof the thought process of the Arbitrator. The Arbitrator has only recorded conclusions. It is further contended that allowing of Claim Nos. 1,9 & 10 by the Arbitrator is improper as no reasons for allowing those claims are given by him. It is contended that the provisions of Section 34 of Code of Civil Procedure were not applicable and Arbitrator was not also a Court and, therefore, he was not justified in awarding interest. Therefore, in these circumstances, it is contended that the award passed by the Arbitrator should be set aside.