Supreme CourtDivision Bench(1988) 08 SC CK 0023

Suresh Ragho Desai and Another vs Vijaya Vinayak Ghag and Another

Supreme Court Of India · Decided on 29 August 1988 · Citation: AIR 1988 SC 2026 : (1989) 1 ARBLR 33 : (1988) 3 JT 622 : (1988) 2 SCALE 549 : (1988) 4 SCC 591 : (1988) 2 SCR 641 Supp : (1988) 2 UJ 622

HON’BLE JUDGES
Sabyasachi Mukherjee, J · S. Ranganathan, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 2391 of 1987

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

2 paragraphs · 235 words

Sabysachi Mukharji, J.—The High Court of Bombay dismissed the challenge to the award in question. The award is an unreasoned one. The transactions between the parties started sometime 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 unreasoned one. The matter is pending for a long time. It is not desirable, in the interest of justice, to keep this matter pending because some cases are pending here on the question of 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 relevant documents had not been taken into consideration. The High Court has pointed out on reading the award 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 136 of the Constitution to interfere or keep the finding at bay.

2.

The SLP fails and is, therefore, dismissed.