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

1983 Supreme(Sikk) 4

A.M.BHATTACHARJEE
Gangadhar Sarda – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent


Advocates:
N.B. Kharga, for Appellant; A.Deb, Standing Counsel, for Respondent.

Judgement

JUDGMENT:- The learned District Judge, in whose Court the impugned award was filed, having rejected the application of the appellant for setting aside the same, the appellant has come up in appeal against the order of the District Judge refusing to set aside the award.

2. The impugned award has not set out any of the facts and circumstances of the case or the respective contentions or arguments of the parties nor has given any reason whatsoever for accepting or rejecting any of the claims or counter-claims preferred by the parties and (to borrow expressions from the Civil P. C.) is in the nature of a "decree" only and not a "judgment". Mr. Deb, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Union of India, has, therefore, as is usual for a counsel appearing to support an award, urged that the award not having spelt out any fact or law, no error of law, and, therefore, far less an error of law apparent on the face of the award, can be discovered which would warrant setting aside of or any other interference with the award.

3. As is well-known, as early as in 1857, Williams, J., in Hodgkinson v. Fernie (1957-3, CB NS 189 at 202) observed that "where a cause or matters in diff







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