M/S SMAT FORMS v. CHIEF ELECTORAL OFFICER & ANOTHER

Delhi High Court · 20 Apr 2015 · 2015:DHC:11099
S. MURALIDHAR
O.M.P. 1501/2014
2015:DHC:11099
civil petition_dismissed

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court held that the failure to award costs by the Arbitrator is not a ground to set aside the arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and dismissed the petition challenging the awards on that basis.

Full Text
Translation output
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
17&18
O.M.P. 1501/2014
M/S SMAT FORMS Petitioner
Through: Mr. Durgesh Gupta, Advocate,
VERSUS
CHIEF ELECTORAL OFFICER& ANOTHER Respondent
Through: Mr. Shoaib Haider, Advocate.
And OC^^M.P. 1502/2014 M/S SMAT FORMS Petitioner
Through: Mr. Durgesh Gupta, Advocate,
VERSUS
CHIEF ELCTROAL OFFICER & ANOTHER Respondent
Through: Ms. Ruchi Sindhwani, Advocate.
CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR
20.04.2015
ORDER

1. These are petitions under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act ('Act') challenging the Awards dated 15''' September 2014 passed by the sole Arbitrator to the limited extent that in the impugned Awards no costs have been granted in favour ofthe Petitioner/Claimant. OMPNos. 1501-1502 of2014 pgg^ / of[3] 2015:DHC:11099 /T

2. In the statement of claim filed in the arbitral proceedings, apart from making a claim for monetary reliefalong with future interest, the Petitioner prayed for "award cost of theproceedings in favour of the claimant". In the impugned Awards, however, the learned Arbitrator, after allowing the claim in part along with interest @12% pa stated that "therewill however be no order as to costs".

3. The counsel forthe Petitioner was asked whether any document was filed before the sole Arbitrator by the Petitioner to indicate the actual costs incurred by the Petitioner in the arbitral proceedings. No such document is pointed out to the Court. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, however, states that the amount paid by the Claimant as Arbitrator's fees cannot be disputed by the Respondent and at least that should have been reimbursed to the Petitioner.

4. The award of costs is in the realm of the Arbitrator's discretion. The failure to award costs cannot be said to attract any of the grounds under Section 34 of the Act. Accordingly, the Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugnedAwards so far as costs are concerned. OMPNos. IS0I-IS02 of2014 p^gg2of[3]

5. The petitions are dismissed.

S. MURALIDHAR, J