KAPIL KUMAR KHATTAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DISPUTE between the parties arose out of the contract containing Arbitration Clause referred to sole Arbitrator, Shri V. N. Ramamurthy, Superintending Engineer (CWE), culminated into the making and publishing of an award on 21 -4 -1992. parties were intimated on the filing of the award through the process of the Court. Petitioner, Kapil Kumar Khattar, objected to the making of the award a rule of the Court on multiple grounds specified in the objections. The respondents, however, filed detailed objections to the application for setting aside the award and issues came to be framed thereafter with a direction to the parties to lead evidence. It is further gatherable that the petitioners advocate, Mr. S.K. Gupta, through whom he had filed the petition, died.

(2.) IT is contended by Mr. Sanjay Kakkar, advocate appearing for the appellant that he came to be engaged in the case by the applicant/appellant and appeared in the Court on 6th October, 1999 and sought a time for filing the affidavit. The case, however, listed on 24th July, 2000 when Mr. Kakkar representing the appellant, could not appear as his name was not reflected in the cause list, the learned Single Judge made the award a rule of the Court in observing that since the petitioner did not make the arrangement for arguing the case, he entertained no objections in making the award a rule of the Court. It is well settled proposition of law handed down by the Apex Court in catena of cases that, it is not that the justice should be done, but it must appear to have been done. The petitioner/appellant when filed the application for setting aside the award and after objections from the other side, issues have been framed, sufficient opportunity of leading evidence by affidavit must be provided, denial of which in this case has apparently resulted into miscarriage of justice. No one should be condemned unheard is sounded by the Apex Court and to do full justice to both the parties, it is impressed upon to afford sufficient opportunity. The substantial justice should not be scuttled on mere technicalities.

(3.) IN the facts of the case, we are clearly of the view that no substantial justice has been done to the parties in this case necessitating setting aside of the order.