advocatemmmohan

My photo

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN -  Practicing both IN CIVIL, CRIMINAL AND FAMILY LAWS,Etc.,

WELCOME TO LEGAL WORLD

WELCOME TO MY LEGAL WORLD - FOR KNOWLEDGE IN LAW & FOR LEGAL OPINIONS - SHARE THIS

Saturday, November 7, 2015

The question of adducing any kind of oral evidence to substantiate the plea or stand or stance does not arise. It has to be shown from the proceedings carried on before the arbitrator and the evidence adduced before the arbitrator. Evidence cannot be adduced in court to substantiate the challenge on the score of legal misconduct. We are not entering upon any discussion pertaining to moral misconduct as that is not the issue in the case at hand. The decision in Fiza Developers and Inter-Trade Private Limited (supra) has been rendered by this Court while interpreting Section 34 of the 1996 Act. The context being different, we are not inclined to apply the principles enumerated therein to the objection filed under Sections 30 and 33 of the 1940 Act, for the simon pure reason that the authorities are plenty to make it limpid that the issue of legal misconduct on the part of the arbitrator should be manifestly discernable from the record. In the instant case, the High Court has granted liberty to the respondent herein to examine its General Manager to substantiate its claim and further opining that the said evidence should be considered within the parameters of Sections 30 and 33 of the 1940 Act. Therefore, we have clearly opined that to substantiate a stance of legal misconduct on the part of the arbitrator, examination of any witness in court is impermissible. It is because it must be palpable from the proceedings and the learned single Judge has already directed that the proceedings before the arbitrator to be requisitioned by the civil court. Least to say, it will be open for the respondent to establish the ground of legal misconduct from the arbitral proceedings. We may hasten to add that we have not said anything as regards legal misconduct pertaining to the present case, although we have referred to certain authorities as regards the legal misconduct.In view of the aforesaid premises, the appeal is allowed in part as far as it grants permission/liberty to the respondent to examine any witness in court. The learned Civil Judge would requisition the records from the learned arbitrator, if not already done, and the respondent would be at liberty to advance its arguments for pressing the factum of misconduct from the said records. There shall be no order as to costs.

REPORTABLE

                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                       CIVIL APPEAL NO.  9187  of 2015
                        (@ SLP(C) NO. 34309 OF 2014)


M/s Cochin Shipyard Ltd.                     ...   Appellant

                                Versus

M/s Apeejay Shipping Ltd.               ...  Respondent




                               J U D G M E N T



Dipak Misra, J.
       In this Appeal, by special leave, the  appellant  calls  in  question
the legal tenability of the order passed by the learned single Judge of  the
High Court of Kerala in O.P. (C) No. 482 of  2013  whereby  he  has  granted
liberty to the respondent to  substantiate  its  objection  preferred  under
Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act,  1940  (for  brevity,  “the  1940
Act”) by adducing evidence which would be considered within  the  ambit  and
scope of the aforesaid provisions.
2.    The facts which are essential to be stated  for  the  adjudication  of
this appeal are that an agreement was entered into between  the  parties  on
29.11.1980.  As  per  the  terms  and  conditions  of  the  agreement,   the
appellant, a Government undertaking, had  agreed  to  build  and  deliver  a
cargo ship to the respondent for the price of  Rs.  32.527  crores.  Certain
differences  arose  between  the  parties  which  led  to   an   arbitration
proceeding  and  a  former  Judge  of  this  Court  was  appointed  as   the
arbitrator/sole umpire to resolve the  disputes  between  the  parties.   As
facts would unveil, the learned arbitrator after holding series of  sittings
passed an award on 15.07.2009.  After  the  award  was  sent  to  the  civil
court, the claimant-appellant moved the Court for  passing  a  decree  under
Section 17 of the 1940 Act in terms of the award and  the  respondent  filed
O.P. (Arb.) No. 30 of 2009 under Sections 30 and 33 to set aside the  award.
During the pendency of  the  said  petition,  the  respondent  almost  after
expiry of two years filed an application, that is, I.A.  No.  5625  of  2011
seeking permission  to  examine  the  learned  arbitrator  and  the  General
Manager of the respondent as witnesses. The learned  Additional  Subordinate
Judge, vide order dated 23.12.2011, rejected the  application  holding  that
there was no justification to examine the arbitrator; that the  Court  while
considering the objections under Sections 30 and 33 of  the  1940  Act  does
not sit in appeal over the arbitrator’s  award;  that  the  Court  does  not
assess or re-appreciate the evidence; that the award passed by  the  learned
arbitrator can only be assailed on the grounds as engrafted  under  Sections
30 and 33 of the 1940 Act; and that no reason  had  been  disclosed  by  the
respondent, the applicant before  the  Subordinate  Judge,  to  examine  the
witness No. 2, that is, the General Manager.
3.    The aforesaid rejection of the application constrained the  respondent
to file a Writ Petition before the High Court which concurred with the  view
expressed by the court below opining that there was no necessity to  examine
the arbitrator as a witness as more than five years had  elapsed  since  the
award  was  passed.  The  High  Court  further  appreciated  the   reasoning
expressed by the rule making Court and ruled that even if  umpire  would  be
examined, no fruitful purpose will be  served  and,  accordingly,  gave  the
stamp of approval to the same.  However, the High Court granted  liberty  to
the writ petitioner to produce other available evidence to substantiate  its
claim and specifically permitted to examine its employee  as  a  witness  in
the proceeding.  The High Court further observed that his evidence would  be
appreciated bearing in mind the scope of Sections 30 and 33 of the 1940  Act
and, accordingly, modified the order passed  by  the  civil  court.   Be  it
noted, further liberty was granted to summon  the  entire  record  including
the orders passed in the course of the arbitral proceeding.
4.    At the very outset, we are obliged to state that  the  respondent  has
not challenged the order passed by the High Court and, therefore, as far  as
examination of the umpire is concerned, it stands  foreclosed.   As  far  as
liberty to examine the witness  to  substantiate  the  claim  for  the  rule
making Court is concerned, it is contended  by  Mr.  Ranjit  Kumar,  learned
Solicitor General for the appellant, that the respondent  has  been  allowed
to examine the employee as a witness to prove the misconduct of the  learned
arbitrator in conducting of the arbitral  proceedings  as  the  grounds  had
been raised pertaining to grant of adequate opportunity  to  the  respondent
and the recording of minutes. In essence, the stand of  the  respondent  was
that there had been violation of the principles of the  natural  justice  by
the learned arbitrator.   It is urged by the learned senior counsel for  the
appellant that it is  totally  unwarranted  to  examine  witnesses  for  the
purpose of  substantiating  the  claims  before  the  Court  which  has  the
authority to accept the objection under Sections 30 and 33 of the  1940  Act
or to pass a decree in terms of the award.  In essence, the  attack  on  the
order by Mr. Ranjit Kumar is that the witness No. 2, General Manager,  could
not have been permitted by the High Court to be examined  as  a  witness  in
the Court to prove any kind of legal misconduct, for  the  same  has  to  be
demonstrated from the records of the arbitral proceedings  as  well  as  the
evidence adduced before the learned arbitrator.   It  is  further  contended
that the witness sought to be examined had already been examined before  the
learned arbitrator and his evidence can  be  read  by  the  trial  court  to
discern  and  decide  if  there  is  any  perversity  of  approach  by   the
arbitrator.  Learned Solicitor General,  to  bolster  his  submissions,  has
placed  reliance  on  Arosan  Enterprises  Ltd.   v.   Union  of  India  and
Another[1], Inder Sain Mittal  v.  Housing  Board,  Haryana  and  Others[2],
State of U.P.  v. Allied Constructions[3], State Bank of India  v.  Ram  Das
and Another[4], D.D. Sharma v. Union of  India[5],  Hari  Om  Maheshwari  v.
Vinitkumar Parikh[6], Bhagawati Oxygen Ltd.   v.  Hindustan  Copper  Ltd.[7]
and Oil and Natural Gas Corporation v. Wig Brothers Builders  and  Engineers
Private Limited[8].
5.    Resisting the aforesaid submissions, Mr. Vivek Tankha, learned  senior
counsel for the respondent, would contend that adducing of oral evidence  in
a proceedings under Sections 30 and 33 of the 1940  Act  is  not  prohibited
and in the obtaining factual matrix the High Court has  correctly  exercised
its discretion by granting the liberty to  the  respondent  and,  therefore,
the order cannot be found fault with. It is urged by him that  to  establish
the legal misconduct on the part of the learned arbitrator  as  asserted  by
the respondent, it is necessary to examine the General Manager  so  that  he
can throw light on the proceedings before the  learned  arbitrator  and,  in
fact, that is the only way it can be proven.  It is  further  propounded  by
him that this Court in Fiza Developers and Inter-Trade  Private  Limited  v.
AMCI (India) Private Limited and Another[9] while dealing  with  Section  34
of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for brevity, “the 1996  Act”)
has clearly held that evidence can be adduced.  Learned senior  counsel  has
drawn inspiration from the authorities in K.P. Poulose v.  State  of  Kerala
and Another[10], Union of India v. Jain Associates and Another[11] and  Food
Corporation of India v. Chandu Construction and Another[12].
6.    We have already indicated hereinbefore that the rule making Court  had
declined the prayer to  examine  the  learned  arbitrator  as  well  as  the
General Manager.  The said order was the subject matter  of  assail  in  the
Writ Petition under Article 227 of the  Constitution.   We  have  noted  the
submissions of the  learned  senior  counsel  for  the  appellant  that  the
application preferred under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure  read
with Order XVI Rule  1  of  the  Code  of  Civil  Procedure  was  filed  for
substantiating the plea of legal  misconduct  alleged  in  the  application.
The  learned  senior  counsel  has  drawn  our  attention  to  the   various
paragraphs of the petition and the relevant clauses to highlight  the  right
to call for the learned arbitrator as a witness has  been  foreclosed.   The
purpose to examine the General Manager, serial No. 2  in  the  list,  is  to
substantiate its stand/claim  as  has  been  observed  by  the  High  Court.
Therefore, the thrust  of  the  matter  is  whether  on  the  basis  of  the
allegations  of  legal  misconduct  the  High  Court  should  have   allowed
examination of the witness.
7.    To appreciate the controversy in proper perspective, it  is  pertinent
to refer to Sections 30 and 33 of the 1940 Act. They read as under:-
      “Section 30. Grounds for setting aside award.–
An award shall not be set aside except on  one  or  more  of  the  following
grounds, namely:-

(a)  that  an  arbitrator  or  umpire  has  misconducted  himself   or   the
proceedings;

(b) that an award has been made after the issue of an  order  by  the  Court
superseding the arbitration or after  arbitration  proceedings  have  become
invalid under section 35;

(c) that an award has been improperly procured or is otherwise invalid.


Section 33. Arbitration agreement or award to be contested by  application.–
Any party to an arbitration agreement  or  any  person  claiming  under  him
desiring to challenge the existence or validity of an arbitration  agreement
or an award or to have the effect of either determined shall  apply  to  the
Court and the Court shall decide the question on affidavits:


Provided that where the Court deems it just and expedient, it may  set  down
the application for hearing on other evidence also, and  it  may  pass  such
orders for discovery and particulars as it may do in a suit.”

8.    In the present case, the issue that has travelled to this  Court  does
not even remotely relate to Section 33 of the 1940 Act.  It  centres  around
Section 30 of the 1940 Act.   Though  certain  grounds  have  been  provided
under Section 30, we only require to deal with the ambit and sweep of  legal
misconduct on the part of the  learned  arbitrator  inasmuch  as  there  are
allegations as regards non-consideration of relevant  documents,  ascription
of reasons of passing of the award which do not flow from  the  material  on
record and  further the  conduct  of  the  arbitrator  during  the  arbitral
proceedingsin recording of the minutes.  The  assail  does  not  pertain  to
personal misconduct or moral misconduct of the learned arbitrator.
9.    In this regard, reference to a  three-Judge  Bench  decision  in  Firm
Madanlal Roshanlal Mahajan v. Hukumchand Mills  Ltd.,  Indore[13]  would  be
apposite. In the said case, issue arose with regard to misconduct.   It  was
contended before this Court  that  the  learned  arbitrator  was  guilty  of
misconduct as he had amended an issue behind  the  back  of  the  appellant.
Repelling the said submission, the Court opined :-
“Counsel then submitted that by amending an issue behind the back   of   the
appellant,  the arbitrator  was    guilty  of  misconduct.  This  contention
has no force. The  arbitrator had  raised  two  issues.   The  second  issue
referred  to the respondent's claim in respect of 46-1/2 bales  a claim  for
loss in respect of the bales.  At the time of the writing of the award,  the
arbitrator corrected this issue so as to show that  the  claim was  for  the
price  of  the   bales.  By  this  amendment,  the  appellant  suffered   no
prejudice. The parties well knew that the respondent claimed the  price   of
46-1/2 bales  and  fought the case before  the       arbitrator   on    that
footing.”

10.   In the said authority, the Court referred to the decision in  Champsey
Bhara & Company v. Jivraj  Balloo  Spinning  and  Weaving  Company  Ltd.[14]
wherein it has been laid down :-

"An  error  in law on the face  of  the  award  means,  in their  Lordship's
view,   that  you  can  find   in  the   award  or   a   document   actually
incorporated  thereto,  as  for  instance  a  note       appended   by   the
arbitrator  stating  the  reasons       for   his   judgment,   some   legal
proposition which      is  the  basis  of  the  award  and  which   you  can
then say is erroneous."

      Be it noted, the proposition laid down in  Champsey  Bhara  &  Company
(supra) has also been followed in Firm Madanlal Roshanlal Mahajan (supra).
11.   In K.P. Poulose (supra) while dealing with the concept of  misconduct,
a three-Judge Bench was dealing with the speaking award  where  the  reasons
had been ascribed by the learned arbitrator.  A contention was  raised  that
the learned arbitrator was guilty of  legal  misconduct  in  conducting  the
proceedings, for two very material documents were absolutely ignored by  the
arbitrator resulting in miscarriage of justice.  The Court referred  to  the
said two documents and took note of the finding recorded by  the  arbitrator
in the award but  made  an  observation  which  was  inconsistent  with  his
conclusion that the contractor  had  no  right  to  extra  payment  for  the
particular work.  In  that  context,  the  Court  proceeded  to  observe  as
follows:-
“We now come to the award. Although the arbitrator has held  that  “jetting,
however, is not an authorised extra covered by the agreement”, he  has  made
the  following  significant  observation  which  is  inconsistent  with  his
conclusion that the contractor has  no  right  for  extra  payment  for  the
jetting:

“The Chief Engineer has rejected the claims of the contractor on grounds  of
non-inclusion  of  this  (jetting)  in  the  agreement  which  was  executed
subsequent to the direction issued by the department to adopt  jetting.  The
Chief Engineer’s decision totally ignores the next sentence in  that  letter
‘Meanwhile you may execute the agreement’. By this  sentence  the  issue  of
extra payment for jetting is left open  even  after  the  execution  of  the
agreement.”

If the above is the conclusion of the arbitrator, rejection of the claim  on
the ground that “jetting, however, is not an  authorised  extra  covered  by
the agreement” cannot be anything but rationally  inconsistent.  The  award,
therefore, suffers from a manifest error apparent ex facie.”

12.   After so stating, the three-Judge  Bench  opined  that  under  Section
30(a) of the 1940 Act an award can be  set  aside  when  an  arbitrator  has
misconducted himself or the proceedings and misconduct under  Section  30(a)
has not  a  connotation  of  moral  lapse.   It  further  observed  that  it
comprises legal misconduct which is complete if the arbitrator on  the  face
of the award arises at an inconsistent conclusion even on  his  own  finding
or arrives at a decision by  ignoring  the  very  material  documents  which
throw abundant light on the controversy to help a just  and  fair  decision.
On that backdrop, the Court opined that there was a legal misconduct.
13.   In Jain Associates  (supra), the Court referred to  the  authority  in
K.P. Poulose (supra) and Dandasi Sahu v. State of  Orissa[15]  and  observed
thus:-
“... The arbitrator/umpire may not be guilty of any act which  can  possibly
be construed as indicative of partiality or unfairness. Misconduct is  often
used, in a technical sense denoting irregularity and not guilt of any  moral
turpitude, that is, in the sense of  non-application  of  the  mind  to  the
relevant aspects of the dispute in  its  adjudication.  In  K.V.  George  v.
Secretary to Government, Water & Power Department, Trivandrum, (1989) 4  SCC
595, this Court held that the arbitrator had  committed  misconduct  in  the
proceedings by making an award without adjudicating the  counter-claim  made
by the respondent...”


14.   In this regard we may usefully refer to the authority in Paradip  Port
Trust and Others v. Unique Builders[16].  In the  said  case,  a  contention
was raised that the award was passed in violation of  principle  of  natural
justice inasmuch as, certain documents were received without notice  to  the
Port Trust.  Such a contention was raised before  the  High  Court  and  the
said stand was abandoned after perusal of the order sheet of the  arbitrator
which showed that at each stage adequate opportunity was given to  both  the
parties.   Thereafter  the  court  referred  to  the  principles  stated  in
Jivarajbhai Ujamshi Sheth  v.  Chintamanrao  Balaji[17],  Puri  Construction
Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India[18], State of Orissa v. M/s  Lall  Brothers[19],
Gujarat Water Supply and Sewerage Board v.  Unique  Erectors  (Gujarat)  (P)
Ltd. and Another[20], Rajasthan State Mines and  Minerals  Ltd.  v.  Eastern
Engineering Enterprises and Another[21] and opined thus:-
“…  It  is  not  a  case  where  the  arbitrator  has   acted   arbitrarily,
irrationally,  capriciously  or  independently  of  the  contract.   It   is
difficult for us to take a view that there has been a  deliberate  departure
or conscious disregard  of  the  contract  to   say   that   the  arbitrator
misconducted himself...”

15.   In the case of Ispat Engineering & Foundry Works,  B.S.  City,  Bokaro
v. Steel Authority of India Ltd., B.S. City, Bokaro[22], it  has  been  held
that reappraisal of evidence by the  court  is  not  permissible  and  as  a
matter of fact, exercise of power to reappraise the evidence is  unknown  to
a proceeding under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act. The court as a  matter
of fact cannot substitute its own evaluation  and  come  to  the  conclusion
that the arbitrator had acted contrary to the bargain between the parties.
16.   At this juncture, we may refer to some other  authorities  as  regards
the scope of Section 30 of the 1940 Act.  In Allied Constructions   (supra),
a three-Judge Bench after referring to earlier judgments has opined that  an
award passed by an arbitrator  can  be  set  aside  only  if  one  or  other
condition contained in Sections 30 and 33 of  the  1940  Act  is  satisfied.
The Court further opined that the term provided for setting aside  an  award
under Section 30 is restrictive in its operation and  unless  one  or  other
condition contained in Section 30 is  satisfied,  an  award  cannot  be  set
aside, for the arbitrator is a Judge chosen by the parties and his  decision
is final.  It has been further observed that even in a case where the  award
contains reasons, the interference therewith would still  be  not  available
within the jurisdiction of the court unless,  of  course,  the  reasons  are
totally perverse or the judgment is based on a wrong proposition of law  and
further an error apparent on the face of the record would not  imply  closer
scrutiny of the merits of documents and materials on record.
17.   In Hari Om Maheshwari  (supra),  the  Court  after  referring  to  the
decisions in  Arosan  Enterprises  Ltd.  (supra)  and  Allied  Constructions
(supra) opined thus:-
“From the above it is seen that the jurisdiction of the  court  entertaining
a petition or application for setting aside an award  under  Section  30  of
the Act is extremely limited to the grounds mentioned therein and we do  not
think that grant or refusal of an adjournment by an arbitrator comes  within
the parameters of Section 30 of the Act...”

18.   In Wig  Brothers  (supra)  while  dealing  with  the  challenge  under
Sections 30 and 33 of the 1940 Act, the Court  opined  that  a  court  while
considering a challenge to an award under Sections 30 and  33  of  the  1940
Act, does not sit as an appellate  court  and  it  cannot  reappreciate  the
material on record.  The Court further proceeded to state that an  award  is
not open to challenge on the ground that the arbitrator had reached a  wrong
conclusion or had failed to appreciate some facts, but if there is an  error
apparent on the face of the award or if there is misconduct on the  part  of
the arbitrator or legal misconduct  in  conducting  the  proceedings  or  in
making the award, the court will interfere with the  award.    In  the  said
case reference was made to Rajasthan State Mines and Minerals  Ltd.  (supra)
and certain passages were quoted.  We think it seemly to reproduce the  said
paragraphs:-
“22. … The rates agreed were firm, fixed and  binding  irrespective  of  any
fall or rise in the cost of the work covered by  the  contract  or  for  any
other reason or any ground whatsoever. It is specifically  agreed  that  the
contractor will not be  entitled  or  justified  in  raising  any  claim  or
dispute because of increase in cost of expenses on  any  ground  whatsoever.
By ignoring  the  said  terms,  the  arbitrator  has  travelled  beyond  his
jurisdiction as his existence depends upon the agreement  and  his  function
is to  act  within  the  limits  of  the  said  agreement.  This  deliberate
departure from the contract amounts not only to manifest  disregard  of  the
authority or misconduct on his part but  it  may  tantamount  to  mala  fide
action.

23. It is settled law that the arbitrator is the creature  of  the  contract
between the parties and hence if  he  ignores  the  specific  terms  of  the
contract, it would be a question of  jurisdictional  error  which  could  be
corrected by the court and for that limited purpose  agreement  is  required
to be considered. …”

19.   We have referred to series of decisions to appreciate the  concept  of
misconduct and how a party is entitled to make it the fulcrum of  assail  in
his objection under Sections 30 and 33 of the 1940 Act.  Misconduct, as  has
been laid down, does not always have a moral connotation. To  elaborate,  it
may not have any connection with  the  individual/personal  conduct  of  the
arbitrator. The said conduct would be in sphere  of  moral  misconduct.   As
far as legal misconduct is concerned, as the authorities would  demonstrate,
the same must be manifest  or  palpable  from  the  proceedings  before  the
arbitrator. To elaborate, a person urging the  ground  of  legal  misconduct
has to satisfy the court from the records of the arbitral  proceedings  that
there has been a legal misconduct  on  the  part  of  the  arbitrator  as  a
consequence of which the award gets vitiated.  The question of adducing  any
kind of oral evidence to substantiate the plea or stand or stance  does  not
arise.  It has to be shown  from  the  proceedings  carried  on  before  the
arbitrator and the evidence adduced before the arbitrator.  Evidence  cannot
be adduced in court to substantiate the challenge  on  the  score  of  legal
misconduct.  We are not entering upon any  discussion  pertaining  to  moral
misconduct as that is not the issue in the case at  hand.  The  decision  in
Fiza Developers and Inter-Trade Private Limited (supra)  has  been  rendered
by this Court while interpreting Section 34 of the 1996  Act.   The  context
being different, we are not inclined  to  apply  the  principles  enumerated
therein to the objection filed under Sections 30 and 33  of  the  1940  Act,
for the simon pure reason that the authorities are plenty to make it  limpid
that the issue of legal misconduct on the part of the arbitrator  should  be
manifestly discernable from the record.
20.   In the instant case,  the  High  Court  has  granted  liberty  to  the
respondent herein to examine its General Manager to substantiate  its  claim
and further opining that the said evidence should be considered  within  the
parameters of Sections 30 and 33  of  the  1940  Act.   The  learned  senior
counsels for the parties have  pressed  their  argument  relating  to  legal
misconduct. Both the learned senior counsels for the parties have  construed
the  order  that  the  said  liberty  has  been  granted  to  establish  the
misconduct and precisely that is the subject matter of challenge before  us.
 Therefore, we have clearly opined that to substantiate a  stance  of  legal
misconduct on the part of the arbitrator,  examination  of  any  witness  in
court is impermissible.   It  is  because  it  must  be  palpable  from  the
proceedings and the learned single  Judge  has  already  directed  that  the
proceedings before the arbitrator to be requisitioned by  the  civil  court.
Least to say, it will be open for the respondent to establish the ground  of
legal misconduct from the arbitral proceedings.  We may hasten to  add  that
we have not said anything as regards  legal  misconduct  pertaining  to  the
present case, although we have referred to certain  authorities  as  regards
the legal misconduct.
21.    In view of the aforesaid premises, the appeal is allowed in  part  as
far as it  grants  permission/liberty  to  the  respondent  to  examine  any
witness in court.  The learned Civil Judge  would  requisition  the  records
from the learned arbitrator, if not already done, and the  respondent  would
be  at  liberty  to  advance  its  arguments  for  pressing  the  factum  of
misconduct from the said records.  There shall be no order as to costs.
                                             .............................J.
                                                               [Dipak Misra]


                                             ..........................., J.
                                                          [Prafulla C. Pant]
New Delhi
November 06, 2015

-----------------------
[1]    (1999) 9 SCC 449
[2]    (2002) 3 SCC 175
[3]    (2003) 7 SCC 396
[4]    (2003) 12 SCC 474
[5]    (2004) 5 SCC 325
[6]    (2005) 1 SCC 379
[7]    (2005) 6 SCC 462
[8]    (2010) 13 SCC 377
[9]    (2009) 17 SCC 796
[10]   (1975) 2 SCC 236
[11]   (1994) 4 SCC 665
[12]   (2007) 4 SCC 697
[13]   AIR 1967 SC 1030
[14]   AIR 1923 PC 66
[15]   (1990) 1 SCC 214
[16]   (2001) 2 SCC 680
[17]   (1964) 5 SCR 480
[18]   (1989) 1 SCC 411
[19]   (1988) 4 SCC 153
[20]   (1989) 1 SCC 532
[21]   (1999) 9 SCC 283
[22]   (2001) 6 SCC 347

-----------------------
20


No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.