Back
2010 (1) Supreme 300
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K.G. Balakrishnan, CJI., J.M. Panchal, and Dr. B.S. Chauhan, JJ.
Union of India — Appellant
versus
M/s. Harbans Singh Tuli & Sons Build. (P) Ltd. — Respondent
Special Leave Petition (C) No. 12299 of 2004
Dated : 20-1-2010
The Arbitrator has stated that the relevant records were not produced by the Union of India before the Arbitrator and in support of the claim, the claimant had filed affidavits and the deponents were available for cross-examination but they were not cross-examined by the appellant. It being so, the Arbitrator was not in a position to give detailed reasons. Therefore, the lack of detailed reasons cannot be claimed as an infirmity and the Award can only be accepted. It may also be noticed that all the claims have been only partly allowed; only ten percent of the total claim of the respondent had been upheld by the Arbitrator. Therefore, the objections are rejected and the Award passed by the Arbitrator is made decree of the Court and the respondent would be at liberty to take other appropriate steps for execution of the decree. (Para 3)
Facts of the case:
The Arbitration Award was not a reasoned one due to the fact that relevant records were not produced by the Union of India before the Arbitrator and in support of the claim, the claimant had filed affidavits and the deponents were available for cross-examination but they were not cross-examined by the appellant.
Findings of the Court:
The Arbitrator was not in a position to give detailed reasons. Therefore, the lack of detailed reasons cannot be claimed as an infirmity and the Award can only be accepted. It may also be noticed that all the claims have been only partly allowed; only ten percent of the total claim of the respondent had been upheld by the Arbitrator. Therefore, the objections are rejected and the Award passed by the Arbitrator is made decree of the Court.
Result : Appeals dismissed.
ORDER
1. Heard learned Additional Solicitor General of India and the respondent-in person.
2. This Court, by an order dated 24th August, 2007, appointed the Arbitrator and the Arbitrator filed the Award on 26.04.2008. The petitioner-Union of India was given an opportunity to file its objections to the Award and the objections were filed on 22.10.2008, after the period prescribed had expired.
3. One of the contentions raised by the Union of India is that this Court had specifically directed that the Award should be a reasoned one and yet the impugned Award lacks the particulars and the Award is not sustainable in law. The Arbitrator has stated that the relevant records were not produced by the Union of India before the Arbitrator and in support of the claim, the claimant had filed affidavits and the deponents were available for cross-examination but they were not cross-examined by the appellant. It being so, the Arbitrator was not in a position to give detailed reasons. Therefore, the lack of detailed reasons cannot be claimed as an infirmity and the Award can only be accepted. It may also be noticed that all the claims have been only partly allowed; only ten percent of the total claim of the respondent had been upheld by the Arbitrator. Therefore, the objections are rejected and the Award passed by the Arbitrator is made decree of the Court and the respondent would be at liberty to take other appropriate steps for execution of the decree.
4. The awarded amount would be paid within a period of two months from the date of this order.
5. The Special Leave Petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.
***********
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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
