AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
6 paragraphs · 405 wordsS.S. Kang, J. (Oral)
Jagir Singh and Kesar Singh are members of the Kotli Phassi Cooperative Agricultural Service Society, village Kotli Phassi, Tehsil Batala, District Gurdaspur (hereinafter called `the Society''). Buta Singh, son of Jagir Singh and brother of Kesar Singh, petitioner was also a member of the Society. The above mentioned Buta Singh used to secure loans from the Society off and on and had been repaying the said loans. On 31st of May, 1971 Shri Gurmej Singh, Arbitrator gave three awards against Buta Singh for the recovery of Rs. 2049.53 as principal Rs. 546.80 as cost and Rs. 686.67/ as interest, totalling to Rs. 3283.00 against Jagir Singh; Rs. 1600/ as principal, Rs. 565.20 as interest and Rs. 432.80 as cost, totalling to Rs. 2598/ against Buta Singh and Rs. 1600/ as principal, Rs. 565.20 as interest and Rs. 324.80 as cost totalling to Rs. 2490/ against Kesar Singh.
The case of the petitioners is that they were not summoned by the Arbitrator and had not been heard before passing the awards. The Arbitrator just filled in a proforma and has not mentioned in the awards the details of the dispute referred to him for adjudication. Aggrieved the petitioners have filed this writ petition.
A preliminary objection was taken that the writ petition is belated because it has been filed after four years of the awards. There is no merit in the contention. The case of the petitioners is that they were not informed about the proceedings and they have filed a writ petition after they came to know about the awards.
The award is not a speaking one. The details of the dispute have not been referred to in the awards. It is not mentioned what type of loan it was. The most important point is that there is no evidence that the petitioners were served before deciding this case. There is no mention of this fact in the awards. No other evidence has been produced to show that the petitioners were ever served by the Arbitrator. The awards, therefore, are clearly in violation of the principles of natural justice and are liable to be quashed. I, therefore, allow this writ petition and set aside the impugned awards.
However, it will be open to the respondentSociety to approach the Assistant Registrar for the appointment of a new Arbitrator to dispose of the dispute in accordance with law.