Back
2017 Supreme(Raj) 135
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA, J.
Kumari Shefali - Appellant
Versus
R S R T C - Respondent
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 32 of 2009
Decided On : 14-02-2017
For the Appellant : Mr. Mahendra Goyal.
For the Respondent: Mr. Manish Choudhary.
The court has the authority to interfere with an impugned judgment and award if it is not based on a thorough consideration of the facts of the case.
Headnote:
Interference - Impugned Judgment and Award - The court partly allowed the appeal, quashed and set aside the impugned judgment and award, and remanded the matter to the Tribunal for fresh consideration.
Fact of the Case:
The appeal was filed against the impugned judgment and award passed by the MACT. The appellant contended that the Tribunal did not consider the objections raised and the finding on issue no. 4 was contrary to the material available on record.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the impugned award passed by the Tribunal was not based on a thorough consideration of the facts of the case and needed interference. The appeal was partly allowed, and the matter was remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration.
Issues: The issues revolved around the Tribunal's consideration of objections raised by the appellant and the finding on issue no. 4.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the lack of thorough consideration of the facts by the Tribunal and the need for fresh consideration of the matter.
Final Decision: The appeal was partly allowed, the impugned judgment and award were quashed and set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and after hearing both the parties, the appeal is being disposed of at this stage.
2. Brief facts of the case are that this appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment and award passed by the MACT.
3. At the very outset, learned counsel for the appellant/s submits that the learned Tribunal while passing the impugned award has not taken into consideration the objections which he has raised by way of aforesaid appeal. The finding of learned Tribunal on issue no. 4 is contrary to the material available on record. Thus, the impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal qua issue no. 4 be quashed and set aside and the matter be remanded to the learned Tribunal with the direction to decide the matter afresh in the light of grounds which he has raised by way of aforesaid appeal.
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent/s though opposed the same but requested that the learned Tribunal may be directed to hear him/them at the time of deciding the matter afresh on the aforesaid issue/s, and he may be permitted to raise all the objections to the grounds as have been raised in this appeal.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant material on record including the impugned award.
6. In my considered view, the learned Tribunal while passing the impugned award has not gone through the facts of the case and passed the impugned award surreptitiously. Thus, the impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal needs interference by this court.
7. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed and the impugned judgment and award passed by learned Tribunal qua on aforesaid issue is quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded to the Tribunal with the direction to decide the matter afresh as early as possible, qua the aforesaid issue/s in the light of grounds raised by the learned counsel for the appellant/s in the aforesaid appeal and the judgments to be cited by learned counsel for the parties, if any, after issuing notice to all the concerned parties and giving opportunity of hearing to them.
8. Both the parties request for specific date for appearing before the trial court, hence they are directed to appear before the learned Tribunal on 05/07/2017.
Record, if any, be sent back.
