Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Punjab State Electricity Board vs M/S. Megh Raj Bansal, Govt. Contractor And Suppliers & Anr.

Supreme Court29 August 2018Vineet Saran · R. Banumathi

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

1

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