'
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.
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.
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
c
D
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.
A.K. Gupta forthe Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
G
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
D
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.
t
)
Lex