Back
2017 Supreme(Raj) 145
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA, J.
Smt Nandu Devi & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Mohan Lal & Anr. - Respondents
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1214 of 2007
Decided On : 14-02-2017
For the Appellants : Mr. Sandeep Mathur
For the Respondents: Mr. Aladeen Khan
Courts may interfere with an impugned award if it is found that the Tribunal did not thoroughly consider the facts of the case and the award needs fresh consideration.
Headnote:
Interference - Impugned Judgment and Award - Court interfered with the impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal and remanded the matter for fresh consideration
Fact of the Case:
The appeal was filed against the impugned judgment and award passed by the MACT. The appellants argued that the Tribunal did not consider their objections and the findings on certain issues were contrary to the material available on record.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal was not based on a thorough consideration of the facts of the case and therefore needed interference. The court partly allowed the appeal, quashed the impugned judgment and award, and remanded the matter to the Tribunal for fresh consideration.
Issues: The issues revolved around the Tribunal's failure to consider the objections raised by the appellants and the contradictory findings on certain issues.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision to interfere with the impugned award was based on the lack of thorough consideration of the facts by the Tribunal and the need for a 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.
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 appellants 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. 1, 2 and 3 is contrary to the material available on record. Thus, the impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal qua issue no. 1, 2 and 3 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 respondents 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 issues, 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 issues in the light of grounds raised by the learned counsel for the appellants 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.
9. Record, if any, be sent back.
