Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J S Verma, K S Paripoornan
COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX, APPELLANT
VERSUS
GOVIND RAM BHAGAT RAM, RESPONDENT.
Civil Appeal No. ... of 1994 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 12997 of 1993), decided on August 18, 1994.
Arbitration Act - Section 20 - Contract - Completion or abandonment - Except where otherwise specified in contract decision of Chief Engineer of Rajasthan for tie being shall be final conclusive and binding on all parties to contract upon all questions relating to meaning of specifications designs drawings instructions hereinbefore mentioned and as quality of workmanship or material used on work or as to any other question claim right matter or things whatever in any way arising out of or relating to contract design drawings specifications or estimates instructions orders or these conditions or otherwise concerning works or execution or failure to execute same whether arising during progress of works or after completion or abandonment thereof or contract by contractor shall be finally conclusive and binding on contractor – Held, Having said this court are view that Chief Engineer in present case ought to have decision matter as terms of clause agreement - He may not decide it as an arbitrator Arbitration Act since he has not been appointed as such clause - But he was duty-bound to decide firms claims after hearing it - As provided for in clause whatever decision he gives is binding on parties - While dismissing these appeals court therefore direct Chief Engineer of State to decide claims made by appellant as early as possible provided claims are made within four months from today - In circumstances of case there will be no order as to costs - Penalty proceedings which are adopted by State shall be subject to final outcome of decision Chief Engineer in claims that appellants will make before Chief Engineer - Stay granted by this Court in civil appeals shall stand vacated – Appeal dismissed
ORDER
1. Special leave granted.
2. Heard.
3. This appeal by special leave is against the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in a revision under Section 11 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The High Court has allowed the revision against the order of the Sales Tax Tribunal. The grievance made by the Department in this appeal is that the High Court has interfered with a finding of fact which was not permissible in revision under Section 11(1) of the Act. We find merit in this submission.
4. The scope of revision under Section 11(1) of the Act does not extend to interference with a finding of fact on reappreciation of the evidence. The only ground on which the revision has been allowed by the High Court is one of fact and this has been done after reappreciation of evidence of evidence on that question of fact. The High Court clearly observed that the Sales Tax Tribunal has not correctly appreciated the facts. No doubt, the High Court then says that there is no material on record to support the finding of fact that all 580 tins were unloaded at Hathras. A perusal of the Tribunals order dated 20-4-1991 (at pp. 26-30 of the paper-book) indicates that this assumption made by the High Court is incorrect. The Tribunal has recorded a clear finding of fact based on material against the assessee and the view taken by the Tribunal in its order on the question of fact being based on evidence was not open to interference in a revision under Section 11 of the Act. There is no ground available in law to set aside the order of Tribunal in the revision. The High Courts order is, therefore, set aside.
5. Consequently, the appeal is allowed with costs. The impugned order dated 12-8-1992 made by the High Court in Sales Tax Revision No. 686 of 1991 is set aside, with costs.
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
