Miss Lucy
← All judgments

M/S. Kunja Behari Banerjee & Sons & Ors vs M/S. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd

Supreme Court23 April 2008H.K. Sema · Markandey Katju

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

A court should not interfere with an arbitral award merely because it differs from what the court might have decided; interference is warranted only where the award is shown to lack sufficient reasoning and factual support, and where an arbitrator's award is supported by sufficient reasons and documents, the trial court and appellate court err in law by overturning it without demonstrating substantive defect in the award's reasoning or evidence.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

CASE NO.:Appeal (civil) 6040-6041 of 2002
PETITIONER:M/S. KUNJA BEHARI BANERJEE & SONS & ORS
RESPONDENT:M/S. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 23/04/2008
BENCH:H.K. SEMA & MARKANDEY KATJU
JUDGMENT:
JUDGMENTO R D E R
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6040-6041 OF 2002

These appeals, filed by the claimant, are directed against the judgment and order dated 7/8/2001 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court affirming the judgment dated 20/7/1993 passed by the Assistant District Judge No.1, Guwahati in Misc.(Arb.) Case No.72/1992 thereby upsetting the award passed by the Arbitrator.

Respondent, though served, is not represented today by any counsel on the first call. Even on second call, none appears on behalf of the respondent.

These appeals are of 2002 and deserve expeditious disposal. We, therefore, proceed to hear Mr. P.K. Goswami, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant.

In view of the order that we propose to pass, it may not be necessary to recite the entire facts leading to the .......2.

- 2 -

filing of the present appeals. Suffice it to say, the appellant's shop was insured with the respondent company for an amount of Rs.3,00,000/-. There was a fire accident in the premises of the appellant. The insurance company agreed to pay Rs.2,25,808/-. However, the same was not accepted by the appellant and an arbitrator was appointed. The arbitrator awarded Rs.73,350/- over and above Rs.2,25,808/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum, which was upset by the trial Judge whose judgment was affirmed by the High Court.

On perusal of the award passed by the arbitrator, we are of the view that the award was supported by sufficient reasons and documents. In that view of the matter, the trial Court as well as the High Court erred in law in interfering with the well-reasoned award passed by the arbitrator. Accordingly, the orders of the trial Court and the High Court are set aside. The award dated 24/2/1992 passed by the arbitrator is restored.

The appeals are allowed in the above terms.

This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.

Research this judgment with Miss Lucy

Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.

Try Miss Lucy free