LexTHE NAVNIRMAN DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANTS (I) PVT. LTD. versus THE DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER & PRESIDENT DISTRICT SPORTS COMPLEX EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2017] 6 S.C.R. 347 • THE NAVNIRMAN DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANTS (I) PVT. LTD. v. THE DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER & PRESIDENT DISTRICT SPORTS COMPLEX EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE (Civil Appeal Nos. 8408-09 of2017) JULYOS,2017 [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND R. BANUMATHI, JJ.J A B Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Arbitration award - Pronouncement of, in favour of appellant - On challenge by respondent, District Judge modified the award by reducing the C awarded sum - Appeal thereagainst as also review, dismissed by the High Court - On appeal, held: High Court while dismissing the appeal did not set out even the factual controversy properly much less in detail and nor dealt with any of the grounds taken by the parties - High Court erred in not recording any finding much less D reasoned finding keeping in view the stand of the parties taken in the pleadings and the grounds of appeal -Also erred in not pointing out as to why the order of the District Judge is legally sustainable - High Court decided the appeal in the absence of both parties - In such situation, provisions of Or. XL! r. 17 CPC got attracted and, thus, the High Court should have taken recourse to the E powers u/Or. XL! r. 17 for passing appropriate orders - Said approach and the cryptic reasoning of the High Court cannot be accepted - Thus, the impugned order is set aside and case is remanded back to the High Court for deciding the appeal afresh on merits. Partly allowing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1.1 The High Court while dismissing the appeal did not set out even the factual controversy properly much less in detail and nor dealt with any of the grounds taken by the parties F in their pleadings and in appeal in support of their respective G contentions. In order to appreciate the factual and legal controversy involved in the tis, the least which was expected of was that the order which decides the tis between the parties should have contained the brief facts of the case and the grounds on which the action is impugned, the stand of the parties impugning H 347 348 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 6 S.C.R. A and defending the action, the submissions of the parties in support of their stand, legal provisions, if any, applicable to the controversy involved in the /is, and lastly, the brief reasons as to why the case of one party deserves acceptance or rejection, as the case may be. This enables the superior Court to examine the legality of B the decision in its proper perspective in its appellate jurisdiction. [Paras 13-15] [351-C-F] 1.2 The High Court decided the appeal in the absence of both parties. In other words, when the appeal was called on for. hearing, neither the counsel for the appellant nor the counsel for the respondent was present. In such situation, provisions of Or. C XLI r. 17 CPC got attracted and, therefore, the High Court should have taken recourse to the powers under Or. XLI r. 17 for passing appropriate orders as contemplated in r. 17. In any event, the dismissal of appeal being essentially under Or. XLI r. 17, the appellant should have taken recourse to the remedy available D under Or. XLI r. 19 by filing application to the High Court praying therein for readmission of their appeal by making out the sufficient cause for their non-appearance on the date when the appeal was listed for hearing instead of filing this appeal against the impugned order before this Court. [Para 16-18) [351-F-H ; 352-A-B) E F 1.3 The High Court erred in not recording any finding much less reasoned finding keeping in view the stand of the parties taken in the pleadings and the grounds of appeal. The High Court also erred in not pointing out as to why the order of the District Judge is legally sustainable calling no interference therein. If the High Court decided to embark upon the merits of the appeal then it should have recorded findings by dealing with all the issues arising in the case. The said approach and the cryptic reasoning of the High Court cannot be accepted. The impugned order is set aside and the case is remanded back to the High Court for deciding the appeal afresh on merits in accordance with law. [Para G 19-20) [352-C-D] CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 8408- 8409of2017. From the Judgment and Order dated 13.09.2013 in Arbitration Appeal No. 9 of2008 and 04.09.2014 in Review Petition No. I of2014 H of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay. - ' NAVNIRMAN DEV. CONSU
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.