http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: SURESH RAGHO DESAI & ANR

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: SMT. VIJAYA VINAYAK GHAG & ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT29/08/1988

BENCH: MUKHARJI, SABYASACHI (J) BENCH: MUKHARJI, SABYASACHI (J) RANGNATHAN, S.

CITATION:  1988 AIR 2026            1988 SCR  Supl. (2) 641  1988 SCC  (4) 591        JT 1988 (3)   522  1988 SCALE  (2)549

ACT:     Arbitration  Act,  1940: ss. 30 &  33-Unreasoned  award- Validity   of   Parties   participated   in   proceedings-No objection-taken   when   a  ward   was   made-No   violation of principles of natural justice--No miscarriage  of justice or of equity-Held, challenge not sustainable.

HEADNOTE:     The petitioners participated in the arbitration  without demur.  When  the award was made in 1981  no  objection  was taken 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 been taken into consideration.     Dismissing the special leave petition,      HELD:  The  High Court has pointed out that  the  award does  not indicate that all relevant documents had not  been taken  into consideration.  The parties participated in  the arbitration.  There  is no allegation of  any  violation  of principles of natural justice. There is no mistake of    law apparent on the face of the award or gross mistake of  facts resulting in miscarriage of justice or of equity. It  would, therefore,  be unjust under Art. 136 of the Constitution  to interfere or keep the finding at bay. [642C-D]

JUDGMENT:     CIVIL  APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Special  Leave  Petition (Civil) No. 2391 of 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 for the Respondents.     The Judgment. of the Court was delivered by     SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J. The High Court of Bombay dismissed                                                   PG NO 641                                                   PG NO 642 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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

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.     The  Special  Leave Petition fails  and  is,  therefore, dismissed. P.S.S.                                 Petition dismissed.