Allowed
Air Force Naval Housing Borad v. M/S Creative Consortium & Another
Delhi HCO.M.P./349/2008
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date…
What the court decided
AI extract
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~26
Date of decision: 13th December, 2018
AIR FORCE NAVAL HOUSING BOARD ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Vivekanand, Advocate. (M:9810149231)
versus
M/S CREATIVE CONSORTIUM & ANOTHER ..... Respondents Through: Ms. Gurkamal Arora and Mr. Sanyogita Jain, Advocates. (M:9999845020)
CORAM: JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)
not given any reasons. Sums were awarded under various claims and the Arbitrator has simply followed a template and not given specific reasons and findings in respect of any of the awarded claims. Such an approach is contrary to the statute as also the settled law inasmuch as every arbitral award has to consist of reasons. This is the settled position as laid down in various judgements including State of Kerala v Som Dutt Builders (2009) 10 SCC 259. In the said decision, the Court held as under:
“25. The requirement of reasons in support of the award under Section 31(3) is not an empty formality. It guarantees fair and legitimate consideration of the controversy by the Arbitral Tribunal. It is true that the Arbitral Tribunal is not expected to write a judgment like a court nor is it expected to give elaborate and detailed reasons in support of its finding(s) but mere noticing the submissions of the parties or reference to documents is no substitute for reasons which the Arbitral Tribunal is obliged to give. Howsoever brief these may be, reasons must be indicated in the award as that would reflect the thought process leading to a particular conclusion. To satisfy the requirement of Section 31(3), the reasons, must be stated by the Arbitral Tribunal upon which the award is based; want of reasons would make such award legally flawed.”
The fact that the award is unreasoned is seriously not disputed by either party. In fact the Respondent had filed an application praying that the Ld. Arbitrator be permitted to give reasons in support of the Award.
appointed as the Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUDGE
DECEMBER 13, 2018 Rekha
3 issues framed by the court
Whether an arbitral award passed without giving reasons is sustainable under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996
Whether the impugned award stands set aside due to lack of reasoning
Whether a retired ADJ appointed as a sole arbitrator can adjudicate the disputes between the parties
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Kerala v Som Dutt BuildersRelied on¶12
State of Kerala v Som Dutt Builders (2009) 10 SCC 259 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Air Force Naval Housing Board
M/s Creative Consortium
Prathiba M. Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court