COIMBATORE DISTRICT PODU THOZILLAR SAMGAM REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY versus BALA SUBRAMANIA FOUNDARY AND ORS.

Citation: [1987] 3 S.C.R. 852 · Decided: 11-08-1987 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SABYASACHI MUKHERJI · Disposal: Disposed off
cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
COIMBATORE DISTRICT PODU THOZILLAR SAMGAM 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY 
v. 
BAL.A SUBRAMANIA FOUNDRY AND ORS. 
AUGUST 11, 1987 
[SABYASACHI MUKHARJI AND G.L. OZA, JJ.] 
Arbitration Act, 1940: Section 14(1)-Award of arbitrator-
lnterference-When arises. 
There were disputes between the partners of the respondent firm 
and several legal .proceedings were taken in the courts below, which 
ultimately came to this Court. This Court by an order dated 2nd of 
November, 1982 referred the disputes to an Arbitrator. An application 
for appointment of Receiver was also directed to be disposed of by the 
trial court. 
The Arbitrator duly filed the award dated 3rd of April, 1985 in 
this Court under Section 14(1) of the Arbitration Act. 
The petitioner in the special leave petitions filed an affidavit alleg-
ing that the Arbitrator was guilty of legal misconduct, and that there 
were errors which were amenable to correction by this Court, that the 
award was inconsistent and, therefore, the award should be set aside so 
far as it was against the applicant. 
Ou behalf of the Respondent-Workers an application was filed 
and it was contended that their claims have not been fully protected, 
and that the workers' claim on account of gratuity would come to about 
Rs. 7 Iakhs while the Arbitrator had estimated it erroneously at Rs.4 
lakhs, and had also made no sufficient provision in respect thereof. 
Disposing of the Civil Miscellaneous Petitions, the Court, 
HELD: There is no legal proposition either in the award or in any 
document annexed therewith which was erroneous. The alleged mistake 
or alleged errors, if there be any, of which grievances are made, are 
mistakes of fact, if at all. The grievances, even if true, do not amount to 
H 
an error apparent on the face of the record. [857 A, B, D] 
852 
y 
COIMBATORE DT. P.T. SAMGAM v. B.S. FOUNDRY [MUKHARJJ, J.I 
853 
Sufficient provisions have been made in the award for the existing A 
liabilities of the workers and for any further contingencies is respect of 
their claims. The right of gratuity has been recognised. It cannot, there· 
fore, be said that the award of the arbitrator is left incomplete and this 
dispute left undetermined. [855C-D] 
The objection to the award cannot be sustained. There will, there• B 
fore, be judgment in terms of the award. There will be no interim 
interest. There will, however, be interest on judgment at 9%. [857E] 
Union of India v. A.L. Rallia Ram, [1964] 3 S.C.R. 164; 
Champsey Bhara and Company v. Jivraj Balloo Spinning and Weaving 
Company Ltd., [1932] L.R. 50 I.A. 324; Kanpur Nagar Mahapalika v. 
C 
Mis Narain Das Haribansh, [1970] 2 S.C.R. 28; Allen Berry and Co. 
(P) Ltd. v. Union of India, New Delhi, [1971] 3 S.C.R. 282 and 
Hindustan Tea Co. v. K. Sashikant Co. and another, [1986] Suppl. 
S.C.C. 506, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: C.M.P. No. 46931 of 
1985. 
IN 
W.P. Nos. 11361·62 of 1983 etc. 
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India). 
A.K. Ganguli and K. Swami for the Petitioners. 
Shankar Ghosh, S. Padmanabhan, K.K. Venugopal, C.S. 
Vaidyanathan, A.T.M. Sampath, P. Choudhary, S.R. Setia and S.R. 
Bhatt for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
D 
E 
F 
SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J. There were disputes between 
the partners of the firm Balasubramania Foundry (hereinafter called G 
'the firm') and several legal proceedings were taken in the courts of 
Coimbatore, these ultimately came to this Court. This Court by an 
order dated 2nd of November, 1982 referred the disputes to the 
Arbitrator. The order stated that the disputes were referred to the sole 
Arbitrator, Justice K.S. Palaniaswamy failing him Justice C.J.R. Paul 
and the respective parties including the firm were directed to file their H 
854 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1987) 3 S.C.R. 
A joint memos in all the courts where the suits/proceedings were pending 
before the Arbitrator. The Arbitrator was directed to proceed in 
acoordance with the Arbitration Act. In order to complete the narra-
tion, there was an application for appointment of Receiver which was 
directed to be proceeded with in the trial court. This Court, however, 
by the said order directetl the trial court to dispose of that application. 
B 
By the said order as mentioned hereinbefore in the absence of 
Justice K.S. Palaniaswamy, Justice C.J.R. Paul duly heard and con-
sidered the matter and published the award on 3rd April, 1985. 
It is claimed by Mr. Gho
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.