The court should adopt a liberal approach in condoning delay, and non-speaking judgments in cases under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 are unacceptable.

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

C.M. No. 27239/2016 (for delay)

1. For the reasons stated in the application, delay of 87 days in filing the appeal is condoned, more so in view of the ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of N. Balakrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy AIR 1998 SC 3222, which holds that courts should be liberal while condoning the delay inasmuch as unless the delay suggests gross negligence or malafides for delaying the disposal of the case, delay should be condoned.

2. In my view, delay of 87 days is not such a huge delay by which gross negligence or malafides can be imputed to the appellant. The application is therefore allowed and delay of 87 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

C.M. No. 42316/2016 (u/O XXII R 1 and 2 r/w S.151 CPC)

3. For the reasons stated in the application and for the reason that the right to sue survives, this application is allowed. Legal heirs of the appellant are substituted in place of the appellant.

4. The application stands disposed of.

FAO No. 355/2016 & C.M. No. 27238/2016 (for stay)

5. This first appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter ‘the Act’) impugns the judgment of the court below dated 10.12.2015, by which the court below has dismissed the objections filed by the appellant under Section 34 of the Act.

6. The impugned judgment dismissing the objections, I am forced to note, is an apology for the expression judgment. In an impugned judgment what are the respective cases of the parties and the issues to be decided have to be mentioned. Thereafter how the issues are decided is discussed. The impugned judgment however only states that Award is passed by the Arbitrator and there are no grounds for setting aside of the Award under Section 34 of the Act because there is no incapacity of the objector or any issue of lack of notice. It is also observed that the Award does not deserve to be set aside as it is not in conflict with the public policy of India.

7. This Court is receiving many judgments of the courts below which are most unfortunately dismissing the objections by simply stating that the Award is not against the public policy or the Award does not violate the ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. Vs. Saw Pipes Ltd. (2003) 5 SCC 705 and the other connected judgments. In my opinion, this is an unacceptable practice. Since this Court has received a series of cases where objections under Section 34 of the Act are being decided without even mentioning what the disputes between the parties are, how the Award has decided the same and how a court hearing objections under Section 34 of the Act cannot interfere because the Award, as per the reasoning, is neither illegal or perverse including not falling under the ingredients of Section 34 of the Act, therefore, while setting aside the impugned judgment on the ground of complete absence of reasoning as also discussion as regards what were the issues involved and how they are decided, a copy of this Courts judgment along with the impugned judgment dated 10.12.2015 be put up before Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice, so that appropriate directions can be issued, if Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice so deems fit, to the District Courts that non-speaking judgments cannot be passed while dealing with the objections which are filed under Section 34 of the Act.

8. To show that the present impugned judgment is a completely non-speaking judgment, and as stated above is an apology for the expression judgment, the relevant paras of the impugned judgment of the court below are reproduced as under:-

“5. I have heard ld. counsel for both the parties very extensively. I have also gone through the file and written submissions placed on record.

6. Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case titled as DDA vs. Anand Associates 151 (2008) DLT 18 had held that court does not it sit in appeal over an Award passed by Arbitrator. I cannot reappraise evidence which had been led before Arb