This single judge appeal challenged a Maritime Arbitration Tribunal's award regarding issue No.4. The Court quashed the award due to a failure to consider appellant's objections and remanded the matter for a fresh decision with an opportunity of hearing.
Quashing of the Tribunal's award on issue No.4 and remand for fresh decision after notice and hearing.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR
BENCH, JAIPUR.
J U D G M E N T
S.B.Civil Misc. Appeal No.2423/2008 Punit Kupur vs Suresh Chandra and ors
DATE OF JUDGMENT : 27/4/2016
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA
Mr.KN Tiwari for appellant. Mr.Ali Mohd Khan for respondents
Heard learned counsel for the parties and after hearing both the parties, the appeal is being disposed of at this stage.
Brief facts of the case are that this appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment and award passed by the MACT.
At the very outset, learned counsel for the appellant/s submits that the learned Tribunal while passing the impugned award has not taken into consideration the objections which he has raised by way of aforesaid appeal. The finding of learned Tribunal on issue no/s. 4 is contrary to the material available on record. Thus, the impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal qua issue no/s.4 be quashed and set aside and the matter be remanded to the learned Tribunal with the direction to decide the matter afresh in the light of objections which he has raised by way of aforesaid appeal.
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, grounds as have been raised in this appeal.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant material on record
including the impugned award.
In my considered view, the learned Tribunal while passing the impugned award has not gone through the facts of the case and passed the impugned award surreptitiously. Thus, the impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal needs interference by this court.
In the result, the appeal is partly allowed and the impugned judgment and award passed by learned Tribunal qua on issue No/s.4 is quashed and set aside with the direction to the learned Tribunal to decide the matter afresh as early as possible, qua issue no/s. 4 in the light of grounds raised by the learned counsel for the parties in the aforesaid appeal and the aforesaid judgment, if applicable and other judgments 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.
Both the parties request for specific date for appearing before the trial court, hence they are directed to appear before the learned Tribunal on 1/8/2016.
Record, if any, be sent back.
(MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA)J.
Om
All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being E-mailed.
Om Prakash PA
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the impugned award by the Tribunal on issue No.4 requires interference due to lack of consideration of the appellant's objections?
Punit Kupur
Suresh Chandra
Mahesh Chandra Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
