MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI versus JAGAN NATH ASHOK KUMAR & ANR.

Citation: [1988] 1 S.C.R. 180 · Decided: 17-09-1987 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SABYASACHI MUKHERJI · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI 
v. 
JAGAN NATH ASHOK KUMAR & ANR. 
SEPTEMBER 17, 1987 
(SABYASACHI MUKHARJI AND G.L. OZA, JJ.] 
Arbitration Act, 1940: ss. 20, 30, & 33-Arbitrator. Sole Judge of 
quality and quantity of evidence-When germane and relevant reasons 
are indicated by the arbitrator award not unreasonable-Whether time 
essence of contract-Mixed question of law and fact. 
Indian Evidence Act, 1872: s. I-Applicability of to proceedings 
before an arbitrator. 
Words_ and Phrases: Word "reasonable"-Meaning of 
The respondent no. 1 was awarded a contract by the petitioner· 
Corporation for construction of staff quarters, which was later rescln· 
ded on the ground that he could not complete the work as per the 
schedule. A Single Judge of the High Court referred the dispute to an 
arbitrator. 
The arbitrator in his award submitted to the High Court found 
that there was a delay of nearly four months in the commencement of 
the work due to giving of the lay out etc., that there was also delay in the 
execution of sanitary work by another contractor who was previously 
employed and that this work was still incomplete at the time of the 
making of the award, and as such complete site had not been made 
available to the respondent-contractor in time. He further found that 
there was provision in the agreement for extension of time for comple· 
lion of the contract as well as for levy of compensation for delay, that 
subsequent to the expiry of the stipulated period of completion the 
petitioner-Corporation did not make time the essence of .:ontract by 
G 
directing the claimant to complete the work within a specified period 
but instead rescinded the contract. He, therefore, held that the decision 
of rescission of the contract was bad, wrongful, and hence the claim of 
the respondent for Rs.23,820 was just. He also allowed interest on the 
sum from the date of rescission of the contract. Certain counter claims 
of the petitioner-Corporation were also allowed by giving cogent 
H 
reasons. 
180 
" 
M.C.D. v. JAGAN NATH ASHOK KUMAR 
181 
Rejecting the objection to the award raised by the petitioner, the 
A 
Single Judge of the High Court directed the award to be made a rule of 
the Court. A Division Bench of the High Court summarily dismissed the 
appeal against that judgment and order. 
In the special leave petition to this Court on the question: 
Whether reasonableness of the reasons in the speaking award was just-
iciable under Article 136 of the Constitution. 
Dismissing the special leave petition, 
B 
HELD: 1.1 The reasonableness of the reasons given by an 
arbitrator in making his award cannot be challenged in proceedings C 
under Article 136. [183E] 
1.2 Appraisement of evidence by the arbitrator is ordinarily 
never a matter which the court questions and considers. Section 1 of the 
Evidence Act, 1872 in its rigour is not intended to apply to proceedings 
before an arbitrator. In the instant case, the parties have selected their D 
own forum and the deciding forum must be conceded the power of 
appraisement of the evidence. The arbitrator is the sole judge of the 
quality as well as quantity of evidence and it will not be for the Supreme 
Court to take upon itself the task of being a judge of the evidence before 
the arbitrator. It may be possible that on the same evidence the Court 
might have arrived at a different conclusion than the one arrived at by 
E 
the arbitrator but that by itself could be no ground for setting aside the 
award of an arbitrator. [186B-D] 
Haji Ebrahim Kassam Cochinwall v. Northern Indian Oil Indus-
tries Ltd., A.I.R. 1951 Calcutta 230, referred to. 
2. There was no violation of any principles of natural justice in 
the instant case. It was not a case where the arbitrator had refused 
cogent and material factors to be taken into consideration. The award 
could not therefore, be said to be vitiated by non-reception of material 
or non-consideration of the relevant aspects of the matter. [ 186A-B] 
Mediterranean & Eastern Export Co. Ltd. v. Fortress Fabrics 
Ltd., [1948] 2 All. E.R. 186, referred to. 
F 
G 
3. Whether in a particular contract time was the essence of the 
contract or not, is a mixed question of law and fact. In the instant case, 
the reasons given by the arbitrator in holding that it could not be taken H 
182 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
( 1988) 1 S.C.R. 
A that time was the essence of the contract, were cogent and based on 
~ 
materials on record and have 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.