Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
SURESH RAGHO DESAI & ANR
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
SMT. VIJAYA VINAYAK GHAG & ANR.
DATE OF JUDGMENT29/08/1988
BENCH:
MUKHARJI, SABYASACHI (J)
BENCH:
MUKHARJI, SABYASACHI (J)
RANGNATHAN, S.
CITATION:
1988 AIR 2026 1988 SCR Supl. (2) 641
1988 SCC (4) 591 JT 1988 (3) 522
1988 SCALE (2)549
ACT:
Arbitration Act, 1940: ss. 30 & 33-Unreasoned award-
Validity of Parties participated in proceedings-No
objection-taken when a ward was made-No violation
of principles of natural justice--No miscarriage of justice
or of equity-Held, challenge not sustainable.
HEADNOTE:
The petitioners participated in the arbitration without
demur. When the award was made in 1981 no objection was
taken by them that it was bad being unreasoned one. The High
Court dismissed the challenge to the award. In the special
leave petition it was contended for them that relevant
documents had not been taken into consideration.
Dismissing the special leave petition,
HELD: The High Court has pointed out that the award
does not indicate that all relevant documents had not been
taken into consideration. The parties participated in the
arbitration. There is no allegation of any violation of
principles of natural justice. There is no mistake of law
apparent on the face of the award or gross mistake of facts
resulting in miscarriage of justice or of equity. It would,
therefore, be unjust under Art. 136 of the Constitution to
interfere or keep the finding at bay. [642C-D]
JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition
(Civil) No. 2391 of 1987.
From the Judgment and Order dated 22.10.86 of the Bombay
High Court in Appeal No. 439/82.
S.B. Bhasme and A.S. Bhasme for the Petitioners.
A.K. Gupta for the Respondents.
The Judgment. of the Court was delivered by
SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J. The High Court of Bombay dismissed
PG NO 641
PG NO 642
the challenge to the award in question. The award is an
unreasoned one. The transactions between the parties started
some time in 1974. The petitioners participated in the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
reference in 1979, without demur. In 1981, the award was
made. No objection was taken at that time that the award was
bad being an unreasoned one. The matter is pending for a
long time. It is not desirable, in the interest of justice,
to keep this matter pending because some cases are pending
here on the question of the validity of unreasoned award per
se. The parties participated in the arbitration. There is no
allegation of any violation of principles of natural
justice. One of the contentions in support of
this application was that relevant documents had not been
taken into consideration. The High Court has pointed out on
reading the award that it does not indicate that all
relevant documents had not been taken into consideration. On
the facts of this case, from the records and on the face of
the award there is no mistake of law apparent on the face of
the award or gross mistake of facts resulting in the
miscarriage of justice or of equity. In the premises it
would be unjust under Article 136 of the Constitution to
interfere or keep the finding at bay.
The Special Leave Petition fails and is, therefore,
dismissed.
P.S.S. Petition dismissed.