1989 PLP 1486 (MLD)
SURESH RAGHO DESAI and another — Petitioners Versus Smt. VIJAYA VINAYAK GHAG and another — Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1486 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Bench Members | Sabyasachi Mukharji and S. Ranganathan, JJ |
| Parties | SURESH RAGHO DESAI and another — Petitioners Versus Smt. VIJAYA VINAYAK GHAG and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Arbitration Act (X of 1940) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1486 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Arbitration Act (X of 1940) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 1486 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of India bench comprising: Sabyasachi Mukharji and S. Ranganathan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1486 (MLD) (SURESH RAGHO DESAI and another — Petitioners Versus Smt. VIJAYA VINAYAK GHAG and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
S.30--Award--No mistake of law apparent on face of award--No gross mistake of facts resulting in miscarriage of justice or of equity--Supreme Court declined interim.
Judgment & Decree
Special Leave Petition Civil No.231 of 1987, decided on 29th August, 1988.
S.30--Award--No mistake of law apparent on face of award--No gross mistake of facts resulting in miscarriage of justice or of equity--Supreme Court declined interim. SABYASACHI 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 sometimes 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 the unreasoned award per se. The parties participated to the arbitration. There is no allegation of any violation of principles of natural justice. One of the contentions in support of three 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 acts 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 Special Leave Petition fails and is, therefore, dismissed. M. B. A/21/F.C. Petition dismissed.