SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

1988 Supreme(SC) 538

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SABYASACHI MUKHARJI AND S. RANGANATHAN, JJ.
Suresh Ragho Desai and another, Petitioners
Versus
Smt. Vijaya Vinayak Ghag and another, Respondents.
Special Leave Petn. Civil No. 231 of 1987, D/- 29-8-1988.

Subject

Arbitration Law - Unreasoned Award

Act Referred

ARBITRATION ACT : S.14, S.30
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA : Art.136

Headnote

Constitution of India – Article 136 – High Court of Bombay dismissed the challenge to the award in question – Award is an unreasoned one, The transanctions between the parties started sometimes in 1974 – Petitioners participated in the reference in 1979, without demur, the award was made – No objection was taken at that time that the award was bad being an unreasoned one – Matter is pending for a long time – It is not desirable, in the interest of justice, to keep this matter pending because some cases are pending here on the question of the validity of unreasoned award per se – Parties participated in the arbitration – High Court has pointed out on reading the award that it does not indicate that all relevant documents had not been taken into consideration – On the facts of this case, from the records and on the face of the award there is no mistake of law apparent on the face of the award or gross mistake of facts resulting in the miscarriage of justice or of equity – Held, In the premises it would be unjust under of the Constitution to interfere or keep the finding at bay – High Court of Bombay dismissed the challenge to the award in question – Award is an unreasoned one, The transanctions between the parties started sometimes – petitioners participated in the reference, the award was made – No objection was taken at that time that the award was bad being an unreasoned one – Matter is pending for a long time – It is not desirable, in the interest of justice, to keep this matter pending because some cases are pending here on the question of the validity of unreasoned award per se – Parties participated in the arbitration – Petition dismissed.

Advocates:
A.S.BHASME, ANIL GUPTA, S.B.Bhasme

Judgment

SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J.:- The High Court of Bombay dismissed the challenge to the award in question. The award is an unreasoned one, The transanctions between the parties started sometimes in 1974. The petitioners participated in the reference in 1979, without demur. In 1981, the award was made. No objection was taken at that time that the award was bad being an unreasoned one. The matter is pending for a long time. It is not desirable, in the interest of justice, to keep this matter pending because some cases are pending here on the question of the validity of unreasoned award per se. The parties participated in the arbitration. There is no allegation of any violation of principles of natural justice. One of the contentions in support of this application was that relevant docoments had not been taken into consideration. The High Court has pointed out on reading the award that it does not indicate that all relevant documents had not been taken into consideration. On the facts of this case, from the records and on the face of the award there is no mistake of law apparent on the face of the award or gross mistake of facts resulting in the miscarriage of justice or of equity. In the premises it would be unjust under Article 136 of the Constitution to interfere or keep the finding at bay.

2. The Special Leave Petition fails and is, therefore, dismissed.

Petition dismissed.

For Citation : AIR 1988 SC 2026

Vikas Info Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top