Punjab State Electricity Board vs M/S. Megh Raj Bansal, Govt. Contractor And Suppliers & Anr.
- SCC(2019) 13 SCC 624
- Neutral2018 INSC 762
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
When a High Court sets aside an order of a lower court in an appeal, it must pass a reasoned order that considers and addresses the grounds on which the lower court allowed objections or declined relief, rather than dismissing the appeal without examining those grounds.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL No(s). 9012-9013 of 2018 (Arising out of SLP (C)No(s).31483-31484 of 2016)
PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD Appellant(s)
VERSUS
M/S. MEGH RAJ BANSAL, GOVT. CONTRACTOR AND SUPPLIERS & ANR. Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
BANUMATHI, J.:
(1) Leave granted.
(2) Appellant and respondent no.1 entered into a contract
regarding construction of 184 quarters including water supply,
sanitary installations, compound wall etc. at Nuhon Colony RTP,
Ropar, in which an Award dated 24th November, 1987 was passed by
the Arbitrator for a lump sum amount of Rs.6,63,255/- payable
with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. In the Award
application filed before the Sub-Judge, Ropar, by Order dated
31st July, 1990, the Sub-Judge, Ropar allowed the said objection
and dismissed the first respondent’s application to make the
award rule of the Court.
(3) Being aggrieved, the respondent preferred appeal,
F.A.O.No.955 of 1990, before the High Court. Signature Not Verified
The High Court by Digitally signed by MAHABIR SINGH Date: 2018.08.30
the impugned order set aside the Award of the Sub-Judge dated 17:57:19 IST Reason:
31st July, 1990, which is challenged in these appeals. 2
(4) We have heard learned counsel for the parties who have
taken us through the order of the Sub-Judge and also the
impugned order. By a perusal of the impugned order, we find
that the impugned order is not a reasoned order and the grounds
on which the objection of the appellant was allowed by the Sub-
Judge who declined to make the Award Rule of the Court, was not
considered by the High Court.
(5) In view of above, F.A.O. NO.955 of 1990 is set aside and
the matter is remitted back to the High Court.
(6) Since the Award was of the year 1987, we request the High
Court to hear and decide the matter expeditiously, preferably
within a period of three months from the date of receipt of
copy of this order.
(7) The appeals are accordingly disposed of.
..........................J. (R. BANUMATHI)
..........................J. (VINEET SARAN) NEW DELHI, AUGUST 29, 2018.
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