SANDEEP G. PARVATIKAR Vs. SRIKAKULA KODANDARAM RAMADHYANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This intra Court appeal under Sec. 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') has been filed against judgment dtd. 3/12/2021 passed by the Commercial Court by which petition filed by the appellants under Sec. 34 of the Act has been rejected.

(2.) Taking into account the nature of order which we propose to pass after hearing the learned counsel for the parties at length, it is not necessary to advert with the facts of the case. It is trite law that even a quasi-judicial authority is required to assign reasons for passing the order. In view of the decision laid down by the Supreme court in VICTORIA MEMORIAL HALL vs. HOWRAH GANATANTRIK NAGRIK,(2010) 3 SCC 732. reasons were held to be the heartbeat of every conclusion, apart from being an essential feature of the principles of natural justice, that ensure transparency and fairness, in the decision making process. [SEE: MAYA DEVI Vs. RAJ KUMARI BATRA AND OTHERS,(2010) 9 SCC 486. SANT LAL GUPTA AND OTHERS Vs. MODERN CO-OPERATIVE GROUP HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED AND OTHERS,(2010) 13 SCC 336. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER Vs. TALWINDER SINGH,(2012) 5 SCC 480. and UNION OF INDIA Vs. RAVINDER KUMAR,(2015) 12 SCC 291].

(3.) In view of aforesaid enunciation of law, it is evident that the requirement of assigning reasons have been held as part of justice by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. On perusal of judgment dtd. 3/12/2021 passed by the Trial Court, it is evident that no reasons have been assigned by the Commercial Court while deciding the petition preferred by the appellants. Accordingly, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained in the eye of law.