LexUNION OF INDIA AND ANR. versus M/S JAGJIT INDUSTRIES AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. v. MIS JAGJIT INDUSTRIES AND ANR. MAY 6, 1999 B [V.N. KHARE AND U.C. BANERJEE, JJ.] Telegraph Act, 1885-Section 7-B-Reference of disputes to arbitration-Non-speaking award-Validity of-Such non-speaking awards valid only if it has attained finality prior to ML: Jaggi 's* case-Injunction C against reopening of such award not applicable to a case where the award is given under Section 7-B was challenged on account of absence of reasons in the award prior to ML. Jaggi 's case-On facts, the present award challenged before the High Court and set aside on 20.3.1993 had not attained finality '!nd thus could not be treated as a valid award-Constitution D of India, Article 226. The disputes regarding bills raised by the appellant to the telephone connection installed at the premises of respondent was referred to the arbitration under Section 7-B of the Telegraph Act, 1885. The arbitrator entered into the reference and gave a non-speaking award. The award was E thus challenged before the High Court in a writ petition and the same was set aside on 20-3-1993 (prior to the decision in ML. Jaggis 's* case) on the ground that the award did not contain any reason. Hence this appeal. F It was contended by the appellant that non-speaking award given prior to decision in ML Jaggis's case* has to upheld. Dismissing the appeal, this Court HELD: A combined reading of paragraphs 8 and 9 ofM.L. Jaggi* show that what has been prohibited by this decision is only regarding reopening of the awards which have already attained finality. The injunction contained G in parag~aph 9 of the decision is not applicable to cases where decisions given under Section 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act were challenged on account of absence of reason in the award prior to the said decision. In the case in hand, the award was challenged before the High Court and the same was set aside. Therefore, what has been observed in paragraph 9 is not H applicable to the present case. [1110-E-G] 1108 - -- - U.0.1. v. JAGJIT INDUSTRIES [V.N. KHARE, J.) 1109 ML. Jaggi v. Mahanagar Telephones Nigam Ltd., [1996) 3 SCC 119, A relied on. CIVIL APPEL LA TE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 362 of 1994. From the Judgment and Order dated 20.5.93 of the Punjab & Haryana B High Court in C.W.P. No. 1020of1993. Rajiv Nanda and Mrs. Anil Katiyar for the Appellants. P.N. Puri for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by c V. N. KHARE, J. Respondent herein has a telephone connection. It appears that certain dispute arose in respect of the bills submitted by the appellants towards telephone charges. Consequently, the matter was referred to an arbitrator under Section 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). On 20.8.1992, the arbitrator entered into the reference and on 18th December, 1992, he gave a non-speaking award. This award was D challenged by the respondents by means of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution before the Punjab & Haryana High Court. A Division Bench of the High Court having found that the award does not contain any reason, set aside the award and remitted the matter back to the arbitrator for giving a speaking award. It is against this judgment, the Union -0f India is in E appeal. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants urged that in view of the decision in the case of ML. Jaggi v. Mahanagar Telephones Nigam Ltd & Ors, [1996] 3 SCC 119, the requirement of giving reasons in the award by the arbitrator has to be applied prospectively and for that reason judgment under appeal deserves to be set aside. In brief, the argument is that a non~ speaking award given prior to decision in M.L. Jaggi's case (supra) has to be F upheld. After having gone through the judgment, we find that the argument of the learned counsel is not based on the corre-::t interpretation of paragraphs 8 and 9 of the said decision. Paragraphs 8 and 9 are reproduced below : "8. It is thus, settled law that reasons are required to be recorded when it affects the public interest. It is seen that under Section 7-B, G the award is conclusive when the citizen complains that he was not correctly put to bill for the calls he had made and disputed the demand for payment. The statutory remedy open to him is one provided under Section 7-B of the Act. By necessary implication, when the H A B c D E 1110 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] 2 S.C.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.