Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. versus GULAB NABI AND ANR.

Decided
24 July 2008
Judges listed
ARIJIT PASAYAT (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Appeal(s) allowed

Citations

Official
[2008] 11 S.C.R. 315 · 2008 INSC 864
Not shown
2 other citation strings that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. Link to paragraph N with #para-N; that is paragraph N of the first opinion that numbers its paragraphs, and another opinion's paragraph N is #op2-para-N, #op3-para-N and so on, by its opinion number.

.Dr.

p. 316, margin F

Opinion 2

1

Leave granted.

p. 316, margin F

2

·Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court dismissingthe-appeal filed by the appellant summarily.

p. 316, margin F

3

The appeal was filed under Section ~O of the Workmen's Compens~tion Ac't, 1928 (in short the 'Act'). The primcirY stand taken by the appellant was that the claimant had not established the employer employee relationship so far as the insur~d deceased is concerned. It was also pointed out that there is no evidence to show that the deceased had sustained injuries under the employment and in the course of employmen! of the deceased insured.

pp. 316–317, margin G

4

A Claim Petition was filed under Section 4 of the Act against owner of the offending vehicle and the appellant-National Insurance Co. The Commissioner directed payment of' Rs.2,68,800/-to respondent No.1 along with interest@12%. In terms of Section 20 of the Act, the appellant-National Insurance Company was directed for payment to respondent No.1. The award made by the Commissioner was questioned before the High Court in an appeal which came to be dismissed summarily, in the following manner: "Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Standing Counsel for the State. The appeal has got no force. The appeal is dismissed."

p. 317, margin A

5

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that it was not a case where no substantial question of law is involved. In fact, the acceptability of the evidence in view of various concessions made by the claimant has been completely lost sight by the High Court.

p. 317, margin D

6

There is no appearance on behalf of respondents. As rightly contended by learned counsel for the appellant, the question whether the Insurance Company has a liability arid, if so, what is the quantum was under consideration by the High Court. There is no suitable evidence so far as income of the deceased is concerned.

p. 317, margin E

7

Non-application of mind is clear from the fact that since the State was not a party, the question of hearing the learned Standing Counsel for the State does not arise. The order therefore has been passed without any application of mind. The order is also non-reasoned.

p. 317, margin F

8

Reasons introduce clarity in an order. On plainest consideration of justice, the High Court ought to have set forth its reasons, howsoever brief, in its order indicative of an application of its mind, all the more when its order is amenable to further avenue of challenge.

pp. 317–318, margin G

9

Even in respect of administrative orders Lord Denning, M.R. in Breen v. Amalgamated Engg. Union (1971. (1) All ER 1148) observed: (All ER p.1154h) The giving of reasons is one of the fundamentals of good administration.' In Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. v. Crabtree (1974 ICR 120 (NIRC) it was observed: 'Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice. Reasons are live links between the mind of the decision-taker to the controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived at.' Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. The emphasis on recording reasons is that if the decision reveals the 'inscrutable face of the sphinx', it can, by its silence, render it virtually impossible for the courts to perform their appellate function or exercise the power of judicial review in adjudging the validity of the decision. Right to reason is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system, reasons at least sufficient to indicate an application of mind to the matter before court. Another rationale is that the affected party can know why the decision has gone against him. One of the salutary requirements of natural justice is spelling out reasons for the order made, in other words, a speaking-out. The 'inscrutable face of the sphinx' is ordin~r:!y incongruous with a judicial or quasi-judicial performance.

p. 318, margin A

10

The manner in which the appeal has been dismissed is not the proper course while dealing with the appeal when it rc;iised substantial question of law.

p. 318, margin E

11

Above being the position, we set aside the order of the High Court. The matter is remitted to it for fresh consideration in accordance with law. The parties are directed to place fresh evidence and materials before the High Court for the purpose of adjudication for disposing of First Appeal No. 836 of 2006.

p. 318, margin F

12

The appeal is allowed but in the circumstances without any order as to costs. N.J. Appeal allowed.

p. 318, margin G