LexSHRI M.L. JAGGI versus MAHANAGAR TELEPHONES NIGAM LTD. AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
... SHRI M.L. JAGGI A v. MAHANAGAR TELEPHONES NIGAM LTD. AND ORS. JANUARY 2. 1996 [K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] B Indian Telegraph Act. /9R5: ·'· S. 7B--Aivard oj'Arbitrator Conclusive between parties to the dispute- Not to be questioned in uny court--Need}Or speaking onler~Arbitrator to c give reasons in support of his collc[usion--Hoivever any dec:ision of Arbitra- tor prior to this Ruling not to be reopened--Ruling prnspective in its opera- tion. Raipur Development Authority & Ors. v. Mis. Choklwmal Contractors & Ors., [1989] 2 SCC 721 and S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India, [1990] SCR D _. 44, relied on. CIVIi., APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1540 of 1996. From the Judgment and Order dated 13.3.91 of the Delhi High Court in C.W.P. No. 800of1991. E S.K. Mehta, Dhruv Mehta and Faizan Anam for the appellant. V.R. Reddy, Additional Solicitor General, A.K. Sikri, and Ms. Madhu Sikri for the Respondents. The following Order of the Court was delivered : F Leave granted. The respondents had issued bills for Rs. 50.219 from 16.11.1982 to Janu- ary 15, 1983; for Rs. 20873 for January 16, 1983 to March 15, 1983; and for G ~ Rs. 9,084 for period from September 16, 1982 to November 15, 1982. When the appellant filed the suit, an objection was raised of the availability of the remedy under Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1985 (for short, "the Act"). The civil Court referred the matter to the arbitrator. The arbitrator after giving due consideration to the dispute made the award, Exh. P-3 dated De- cember 19; 1989 giving some rebate on one bill only and confirmed t.he rest of · H 25 26 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] l S.C.R. A the demand. When the appellant filed the writ petition, the High Court of Delhi in the impugned order affirmed the award of the arbitrator. Thus this appeal by special leave against the order dated March 13, 1991 made in W.P. No. 800/91. B c D E F The only question raised in this appeal is whether the arbitrator is en- joined to assign reasons in support of his award. Section 7B of the Act reads thus: "7B. Arbitration·of disputes. (I) Except as otherwise expressly pro- vided ·in this Act, if any dispute concerning any telegraph line, appli- ance or apparatus arises between the telegraph authority and the per- son for whose benefit the line, appliance or apparatus is, or has been, provided, the dispute shall be determined by arbitration and shall, for the purpose of such determination, be referted to an arbitrator ap- pointed by the Central Government either specially for the determi- nation of that dispute or generally for the determination of disputes · under this Section. (2) The award of the arbitrator appointed under sub-section (I) shall be conclusive between the parties to the dispute and shall not be ques- tioned in any court". It is a statutory remedy provided under the Act and, therefore, in a dis- pute as regards the amount claimed in the demand raised, the only remedy provided is by way of arbitration under Section 7B of the Act. By operation of sub-section (2) thereof, the award of the arbitrator made under sub-section (I) shall be conclusive between the parties to the dispute and shall not be ques- tioned in any court. The statutory remedy under the arbitration Act, 1940, thus, has been taken away. The question, therefore, is : whether it is incumbent upon the arbitrator to give reasons in support of the award. In Raipur Development Authority & Ors. v. Mis. Chokhamal Contractors & Ors., [1989] 2 SCC 721, in paragraph 38 at page 753 this Court had held that "having given our careful and anxious G consideration to the contentions urged by the parties, we feel that law should be allowed to remain as it is until the competent legislature amends the law. In the result, we hold that an award passed under the Arbitration Act is not liable to be remitted or set aside merely on the ground that no reasons have been given in its support except where the arbitration agreement or the deed of submission or an order made by the court such as the one under Section 20 or H Section 21 or Section 34 of the Act or the statute governing the arbitration ' ' f. M.L lAGGI v. M.T.N.L requires that the arbitrator or the umpire should give reasons for the award. .i:\ Tli~ award nc\!d not contain the reasons''. It is seen that the dcci~io11 in that case is based on warJ of the.arbitrator "nder the Arbitration Act which
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.