In this appeal against an order dismissing objections to a non-speaking arbitral award, the Bombay High Court held that the scope to interfere is limited and the Single Judge had acted on material available on record, rejecting the appeal.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
-1-
| IN |
THE ORDINARY |
HIGH | COURT OF JU ORIGINAL |
DICATURE AT CIVIL |
BO JURISDI |
MBAY CTION |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| APPEAL | NO.346 IN |
OF | 1997 | |||
| ARBITRAT | ION | PETITION | NO.31 OF |
1997 | ||
| M/s | Ajdev | Inve | stments | and | ||
| Financial Service Rajesh J. Choksh |
s Pvt.Ltd. v/s i and ors. |
...Appellants ...Respondents |
||||
| Mr Rajiv |
Narula | i/b | Mr A.N. |
Narula for |
Ap | pellants. |
| Mr Ajay |
Khan |
dhar | for Respondent |
Nos.1 | and | 2. |
| Mr Sagar |
Divekar | i/b | M/s M/s Wadia |
Gandhy and |
Co. | for |
| Respondent | No.3. | |||||
| CORAM DATE |
: D.K. |
D : |
ESHMUKH AND 11TH |
J.H. BH OCTOBER |
ATIA | JJ. 2007. |
-2-
| P.C. 1. By this appeal, the appellants challenge the |
:- |
|---|---|
| order passed by the learned Single Judge of this |
Court |
| in arbitration petition No.31 of 1997 dated 3rd |
April |
| 1997. By that order, the learned Single Judge |
has |
| dismissed the objections raised by the petitioners |
to |
| the award dated 12th August 1996 made by the A |
rbitrators |
| appointed by the Bombay Stock Exchange. The award |
in |
| relation to which the objections were filed is |
a |
| non-speaking award. We have heard the learned |
counsel |
| appearing for appellants. The learned counsel c |
ontended |
| that Bajaj Auto shares were never purchased on behal |
f of |
| the appellants and there was no authority given by |
the |
| appellants to the respondents to purchase the |
shares. |
| Perusal of the record, however, shows that there was |
a |
| bill issued by the respondents to the appellants |
dated |
| 6th December 1990 bearing No.F/13/0063 which shows |
the |
| transaction in respect of Bajaj Auto shares had |
taken |
| place and that contract amounts were due to |
the |
| appellants. If the appellants had not authorised |
the |
| transaction in Bajaj Auto shares, they would not |
have |
| claimed the amount under that bill but record shows |
that |
| the appellants were claiming the amount under the |
bill. |
| As observed above, the award is a non-speaking |
award. |
:-
-3-
| Therefore, | the | scope | to | interfe | re with the award |
is | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| limited. | It ap |
pears | that | all | relevant aspects of |
the | |
| matter | are | considered | by | the | lear | ned Single Judge. |
In |
| our | opinion, | the | learned | Si | ngle | Judge has passed |
the |
| order | on | the | basis | of | mate | rial available on |
record. |
There is no substance in the appeal. It fails and is
dismissed with no order as to costs.
. Parties to act on the copy of this order duly
authenticated by the Associate / Private Secretary as
true copy.
. Certified copy expedited.
( D.K. DESHMUKH J.)
( J.H. BHATIA J.)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court can interfere with a non-speaking arbitral award.
M/s Ajdev Investments and Financial Service Pvt Ltd.
Rajesh J. Chokshi
D.K. Deshmukh
J.H. Bhatia
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
