SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2009 Supreme(Bom) 1273

ANOOP V.MOHTA
BOMBAY CONSTRUCTION AND ENGINEERING PVT. LTD – Appellant
Versus
MEHTA FINSTOCK PVT. LTD. , MUMBAI – Respondent


Advocates:
Dipen Merchant, J.J.BHATT, MAHESH SHAH, Purohit, S

( 1 ) HEARD finally by consent. This is a petition under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, the Act ).

( 2 ) THE challenge is to the award dated 8th October, 2009 on various grounds.

( 3 ) ADMITTEDLY, the sur-rejoinder and the sur-sur-rejoinder were filed after the closing of the matter. The parties were represented by the advocates. Therefore, in my view, the decision based upon the sur-rejoinder and sur-sur-rejoinder which were filed after closing of the matter, need to be reconsidered again. The submission that even otherwise, the averments made in those sur-rejoinder and/or sur-sur-rejoinder could not have changed the basic award, is not acceptable. Because, it amounts no full opportunity, as contemplated under the principle of natural justice. There is nothing on record to show that the parties have accepted and or consented for such procedural mode and mechanism. Without expressing anything on merits of the matter, on this ground itself, I am quashing this award. However, it is made clear that the Hon'ble Tribunal may fix the matter and pass appropriate order after hearing both the parties within a period of 6 weeks, on the basis of material

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top