TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD versus SUMATHI AND ORS

Citation: [2000] 3 S.C.R. 708 · Decided: 27-04-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.P. WADHWA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD 
~ ·~ 
v. 
SUMATill AND ORS. 
APRIL 27, 2000 
B 
[D.P. WADHWA AND SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI, JI.] 
Constitution of India, 1950-A1ticle 226-Writ jurisdiction-Tonuous 
liability-Disputed questions of facts-Reference to arbitrator-No arbitra-
tion agreement between the palties within the meaning of Section 7 of 
c 
Arbitration Act, 1996-Exercise of jurisdiction by the High Coutt in entertain-
ing the petitions-Whether pmper-Held, no. 
Anicle 226-Writ jurisdiction-Reference to arbitrator for adjudication 
of disputed facts-Thereafter on the basis of award passing decree-Whether 
correct-Held, no-There is no provision for referring the matterio arbitrator 
--... 
D 
by intervention of the Coult-If during the pendency of the proceedings in the 
coult palties have entered into an arbitration agreement then they have to 
proceed in accordance with the provisions of the Arbitration Act, 1998-
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. 
Article 226-Writ jurisdiction-Scope of-When disputed question of 
E 
fact arises and there is clear denial of any tortuous liability, remedy under 
... 
Anicle 226 of the Constitution may not be proper-But when there is negli-
gence on the face of it and infringement of Anicle 21 is there, it cannot be said 
that there will be any bar Jo pmceed under. 
Atticle 136-Discretionary jurisdiction-Scope of-Claim of compensa-
F 
tion in writ petition-Exercise of writ jurisdiction by the High Coult held to be 
unjustified-In the facts and circumstances of the case, whether it would be 
equitable to send the respondents to take proceedings in civil coult-Held, 
No-Hence, appellant restrained from recovering any amount already paid to 
the claimants. 
G 
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996-Sections 2( e ), 34 & 36-Award 
can be enforced as if it is a decree of a court. 
Respondents filed writ petition before High Court, seeking compen-
.. 
sation against the appellant, for death by electrocution. Since there was 
disputed question of fact, the case was referred to the Arbitrator to decide 
H 
the question of compensation, with the consent of both the parties. The 
708 
TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD v. SUMATHI 
709 
award of the Arbitrator was made rule of the court, and High Court 
A 
passed decree in favour of the respondents. 
In appeal to this Court, appellant contended that High Court by 
ref erring the matter to Arbitrator has created a new jurisdiction to deal 
with the alleged negligence of the appellant and has also appointed a 
Corum for adjudication of the same, that creation of such a forum and 
jurisdiction is legislative in character and it could not be done or assumed 
otherwise; and that adjudication of the disputed subject by the Arbitrator 
was not consented to by the appellant. 
The respondents contended that since respondent's right to life un-
der Article 21 has been violated because of the negligence of the public 
authorities, High Court under Article 226 has the power to award compen-
sation; that since reference was made to the Arbitrator with consent of 
both the parties and the Arbitrator held proceedings in accordance with 
law, and decree was passed after examination of the award and the pro-
ceeding, the appellant was estopped from taking a contrary stand, and that 
in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, it would not be equitable 
to send the respondents to take proceedings in a civil court. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1. When disputed question of fact arises and there is clear 
denial of any tortuous liability, remedy under Article 226 of the Constitu-
tion may not be proper. However it cannot be understood as laying a law 
that in every case of tortuous liability recourse must be had to a suit. When 
there is negligence on the face of it and infringement of Article 21 is there, 
it cannot be said that there will be any bar to proceed under Article 226 of 
the Constitution. Right of life is one of the basis human right guaranteed 
under Article 21 of the Constitution. [716-D-E] 
Chairman, Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd. & Others v. Sukamani Das 
and Another, [1999] 7 SCC 298, relied on. 
U.P. State Co-operative Land Development Bank Ltd v. Chandra Bhan 
Dubey & Ors., [1999] 1SCC741; Shakuntala Devi v. Delhi Electric Supply 
Undenaking, [1995] 2 SCC 369; The Chairman Railway Board and Others v. 
Mrs. Chandrima Das, [2000] 1SCALE279; Nilabati Behra v. State of Orissa 
and Others, [1993] 2 SCC 746; Kumari (Smt.) v. State o

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.