Supreme Court of India

SURESH RAGHO DESAI & ANR.versusSMT. VIJAYA VINAYAK GHAG & ANR.

Citation: 1988 INSC 248
Decided: 29 August 1988
Disposal: Dismissed
Bench: SABYASACHI MUKHERJIS RANGANATHAN

Holding

The Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition, holding that the unreasoned award was valid as there was no violation of natural justice, no omission of relevant documents, and no apparent mistake of law or fact.

Summary

The petitioners, Suresh Ragho Desai and another, participated in an arbitration proceeding in 1979 without objection and an award was rendered in 1981. They later challenged the award on the ground that it was unreasoned and that relevant documents had not been considered. The Bombay High Court dismissed the challenge, finding no violation of natural justice or any apparent mistake of law or fact. The petitioners filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court, reiterating the same grounds. The Supreme Court, after examining the award and the parties' participation, held that there was no breach of natural justice, no omission of material documents, and no mis‑carriage of justice. Consequently, the Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition, upholding the validity of the arbitral award.

Issues considered

Whether an arbitral award that is unreasoned can be set aside under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940
Whether the parties' participation without objection bars a later challenge to the award
Whether the award violated principles of natural justice by omitting relevant documents
Whether there is a mistake of law or gross mistake of fact amounting to miscarriage of justice

Legislation cited

Arbitration Act, 1940s. 30, s. 33

Subjects

ArbitrationUnreasoned awardNatural justiceSection 30 Arbitration Act 1940Section 33 Arbitration Act 1940Special Leave PetitionSupreme Court of India

Judgment

                 SURESH RAGHO DESAI & ANR.                                         '
                                                                               A
                                     v.
            SMT. VIJAYA VINAYAK GHAG & ANR.

                           AUGUST 29, 1988

 1[SABYASACHI MUKHARJI AND S. RANGANATHAN, JJ.]                                B

      Arbitration Act, 1940: ss. 30 & 33-Unreasoned award-Validity
of-Parties participated in proceedings-No objection ·taken when
award was made-No ·violation of principles of natural justice-No mis-
carriage of justice or of equity-Held, challenge not sustainable.

      The petitioners participated in the arbitration without demur.
                                                                               c
When the award was 1made in 1981 ino objection was 1taken 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 1been taken into consideration.
                                                                               D
      Dismissisng the special leave petition,

       HELD: The High Court has pointed out 'that the award does not
indicate that all relevant documents had not 1been taken into considera··
lion. The parties participated in ,the arbitration. There is no allegation
of any violation of principles of natural justiee. There is no mistake of      E
law apparent on the .face of.the award ·Or gross mistake of facts resulting
'in miscarriage of justice or .of .equity. It would, therefore, 1be unjust
under Art. 136 of the Constitution to interfere or lleep the finding .at
 bay. [642C-D]                       -

      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition                     f
(Civil) No. 239lof 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.                         G

      A.K. Gupta forthe Respondents.

      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

      SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J. The High Court of Bombay dis-. H
                                    641
                                                               •
    642          SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [1988] Supp. 2 S.C.R.

A   missed 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 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 umeasoned one. The matter is
B   pending for a long time. It is not desirable, in the interest ofjustice, to
    keep this matter pending because some cases are pending here on the
    question elf 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 releyant documents had not been taken into
    consideration. The High Court has pointed out on reading the award
C   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.
D
          The Special Leave Petition fails and is, therefore, dismissed.

    P.S.S.                                                 Petition dismissed.




                                                                                  t
                                                                                  )

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Try "Arbitration"Sign in to search