Partly allowed

Shanti Puri v. M S Trading Co.

Rajasthan HC14 Jul 2016CMA/162/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.162/2005, the High Court of Rajasthan partly allowed the appeal. It quashed and set aside the Tribunal's judgment and award regarding specific issues, finding the Tribunal failed to appreciate facts and grounds adequately. The matter was remanded with a direction to decide afresh after issuing notices and affording parties an opportunity of hearing.

What did the court decide?

The judgment and award of the Tribunal qua specific issues are quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded to the Tribunal to decide afresh after giving notice and hearing to parties.

Shanti Puri Vs M S Trading Co. — Rajasthan HC (2016) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

¶3

JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR.

¶4

J U D G M E N T

¶5

S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.162/2005 (Shanti Puri & Anr. Versus M/s. M.S. Trading & Anr.)

¶6

DATE OF JUDGMENT : 14.07.2016

¶7

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

¶8

Mr. JP Gupta, counsel for appellant(s) Dr. AS Khangarot, counsel for the respondent(s)

¶9

This appeal has been filed by the appellant(s) against the judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal.

¶10

At the very outset, learned counsel for the appellant(s) submits that the learned Tribunal while passing the impugned judgment and award has not taken into consideration the grounds which he has raised by way of aforesaid appeal(s). The finding of learned Tribunal on issue no.2 is contrary to the material available on record. Thus, the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal qua aforesaid issue(s) be quashed and set aside and the matter should be remanded to the learned Tribunal with the direction to decide the matter afresh qua aforesaid issue(s) in the light of grounds which he has raised by way of aforesaid appeal(s).

¶11

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent/s though opposed the same but requested that the learned Tribunal may be directed to hear him/them at the time of deciding the matter afresh on the aforesaid issue/s, and he may be permitted to raise all the objections of the grounds as have been raised in this appeal.

¶12

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant material on record including the impugned judgment and award.

¶13

¶14

In my considered view, the learned Tribunal while passing the impugned judgment and award has not appreciated the facts of the case and the grounds raised by the learned counsel for the appellant(s) by way of instant appeal(s) in a proper manner and passed the impugned judgment and award surreptitiously. Thus, the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal needs interference by this court.

¶15

In the result, the appeal(s) is/are partly allowed; the impugned judgment and award passed by learned Tribunal qua aforesaid issue(s) is quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded to the Tribunal with the direction to decide the matter afresh qua aforesaid issue(s) as early as possible , in the light of grounds raised by the learned counsel for the appellant(s) by way of the aforesaid appeal(s) and the judgment(s) to be cited by learned counsel for the parties, if any, after issuing notice to all the concerned parties and giving opportunity of hearing to them.

¶16

Both the parties have requested for a specific date for their appearance before the Tribunal, hence they are directed to appear before the learned Tribunal on 5.10.2016.

¶17

Record, if any, be sent back.

¶18

(MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA)J.

¶19

¶20

All corrections made in the judgment / order have been incorporated in the judgment / order being E-mailed. Om Prakash, PA

Shanti Puri v. M S Trading Co.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shanti Puri v. M S Trading Co.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hanuman Prasad Yadav andORS Vs State Panchayati Raj Dep Ors.

Raj Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Smt Rahmat and Others Vs Zarena Parveen and Others

Smt Santosh and Ors. Vs Hem Singh and Ors.

Shashi Mittal Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Naresh Soni Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp