BIJENDRA NATH SRIVASTAVA (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. versus MAYANK SRIVASTAVAAND ORS.

BIJENDRA NATH SRIVASTAVA (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. versus MAYANK SRIVASTAVAAND ORS.

The Supreme Court held that the High Court was not justified in setting aside the arbitral award based on alleged misconduct or error on the face of record when no such grounds existed. The trial court erred in allowing the amendment to objections introducing new pleas of misconduct. The conduct of the arbitrator did not amount to misconduct. The award had been acted upon by parties, and neither serious procedural nor substantial injustice was shown. There was no valid ground to set aside the award under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. The appeal was allowed, the High Court judgment set aside, and the award made rule of the court.

Parties
Appellant: Bijendra Nath Srivastava (Dead) Through LRs.; Respondents: Mayank Srivastava and Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
10 August 1994
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Arbitral Award, Amendment of Objections, Misconduct of Arbitrator, Partition of Joint Family Property
Arbitration Civil Procedure Arbitral Award Amendment of Objections Misconduct of Arbitrator Partition of Joint Family Property

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bijendra Nath Srivastava (Dead) Through LRs.

Appellant

Mayank Srivastava and Ors.

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the award of the arbitrator was liable to be set aside for misconduct or error on the face of the record.
  2. 2 Whether the trial court and High Court were right in allowing the amendment to the objection petition against the award.
  3. 3 Whether division/allotment of shares was proper under the arbitral award.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that the High Court was not justified in setting aside the arbitral award based on alleged misconduct or error on the face of record when no such grounds existed. The trial court erred in allowing the amendment to objections introducing new pleas of misconduct. The conduct of the arbitrator did not amount to misconduct. The award had been acted upon by parties, and neither serious procedural nor substantial injustice was shown. There was no valid ground to set aside the award under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. The appeal was allowed, the High Court judgment set aside, and the award made rule of the court.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Judgment of the High Court set aside
  • Judgment of the Additional District & Sessions Judge for making the award the rule of the court restored