BHARAT ALUMINIUM CO LTD Vs. KAISER ALUMINIUM TECHNICAL SERVICE INC
LAWS(CHH)-2005-8-1
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH
Decided on August 10,2005

BHARAT ALUMINIUM CO. LTD Appellant
VERSUS
KAISER ALUMINIUM TECHNICAL SERVICES, INC Respondents

JUDGEMENT

A.K.PATNAIK, C.J. - (1.) The two miscellaneous appeals are appeals under Section 37 (1) (b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as "the Indian Act").
(2.) The facts briefly are that an agreement dated 22-4-1993 was executed between the appellant and the respondent under which the respondant was to supply installed equipment for modernization and upgradation of the production facilities of the appellant at Korba in the State of Chhattisgarh. The agreement provided for settlement of disputes by arbitration, Certain disputes arose between the parties and were referred to arbitration. The arbitration was held in England and the arbitral tribunal made two awards dated 10-11-2002 and 12-11-2002 in England. The appellant thereafter, filed applications under Section 34 of the Indian Act for setting aside the two awards dated 10-11-2002 and 12-11-2002 in the Court of learned District Judge, Bilaspur which were numbered as MJC Nos. 92 of 2003 and 14 of 2003, respectively. By order dated 20-7-2004, the learned District Judge, Bilaspur held that the applications filed by the appellant under Section 34 of the Indian Act for setting aside the two foreign awards are not tenable and accordingly dismissed the same. Aggrieved, the appellant has filed these appeals.
(3.) Mr. Vivek Tankha and Mr. S. N. Mukherjee, learned counsel appearing for the appellant in the two appeals submitted that in the impugned order dated 20-7-2004, the learned District Judge has held that the application filed by the appellant under Section 34 of the Indian Act was not maintainable, but the learned District Judge has not recorded any reason whatsoever for coming to the aforesaid conclusion. They argued that the learned District Judge should have decided the issues of fact and law raised by the parties in their respective pleadings, but no such exercise has been undertaken by the learned Disrict Judge in the impugned order. They submitted that since the impugned order is without any reason, it is liable to be set aside. In support of their submission, they relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Smt. Swaran Lata Ghosh v. Harendra Kumar Banerjee, AIR 1969 SC 1167 and State of Punjab v. Bhag Singh, 2004 AIR SCW 102 : 2004 Cri Lj 916.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.