The Delhi High Court, while setting aside a verdict of a lower court that had dismissed objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, made important observations on how a judgment is to be delivered.
The Single Judge Bench of Justice Valmiki J Mehta observed that,
“A reading of the impugned judgment shows that the court below has simply held that the Arbitrator has considered the evidence before him and accordingly passed an Award…”
The Bench further stated that it is not enough for a court dealing with objections under Section 34 of the Act to say that the Arbitrator has given a reasoning which has to be accepted as correct.
“It is not enough for a Court dealing with objections under Section 34 of the Act to say that the Arbitrator has given a reasoning which has to be accepted as correct.”
Justice Mehta referred to relevant paragraphs of his own ruling in a similar case titled Harbhajan Kaur Bhatia Through Her Attorney Charanjit Singh Bhatia Vs. M/s Aadya Trading & Investment Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., wherein he had observed that,
“The impugned judgment dismissing the objections, I am forced to note, is an apology for the expression judgment. In an impugned judgment what are the respective cases of the parties and the issues to be decided have to be mentioned. Thereafter how the issues are decided is discussed.”
The Bench, in the present case, held that the lower court’s judgment is not one in the eyes of law, and therefore, has to be set aside. He proceeded to remand the matter for a fresh decision.
…does not state what were the issues between the parties, how those issues are rightly or wrongly decided by the Arbitrator and which is a sine qua non for a judgment to be a judgment in the eyes of law…
The Court directed the lower court to decide objections filed by the appellant under Section 34 of the Act in accordance with law and the observations made in the case of Harbhajan Kaur Bhatia Through Her Attorney Charanjit Singh Bhatia Vs. M/s Aadya Trading & Investment Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
No comments:
Post a Comment