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

SACHIN GUPTA AND ANOTHER versus K.S. FORGE METAL PRIVATE LIMITED

Decided
1 March 2013
Judges listed
S.S. NIJJAR, M.Y. EQBAL (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)

Citations

Official
[2013] 2 S.C.R. 215 · 2013 INSC 132
Also cited as
  • (2013) 10 SCC 540 (4 citing judgments)

Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.

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.

1

Leave granted.

p. 216, margin A

2

We have heard learned senior counsel for the appellants as well as learned counsel for the respondent.

p. 216, margin A

3

We are satisfied that the High Court could have set aside the Award only on the ground that the Award has been rendered against the respondent without issuance of any notice and without hearing the respondent. On this ground alone, the Award was liable to be set aside under Section 34(2)(a)(iii) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. There was no necessity for the learned Single Judge to convert itself into a Court of First Appeal. It was certainly not necessary to examine the dispute between the parties so minutely or to make such strong remarks against any of the parties. Judges at all levels are required to be restrained and circumspect in use of the language, even when criticizing the conduct of a party. However, we agree with the conclusion of the High Court that the Award had to be set aside as no notice had been served on the respondent. But, having set aside the Award, it would have been appropriate if the matter had been referred back to the Arbitrator. In the event, any of the parties were not satisfied, an independent arbitrator agreeable to both the parties could have been appointed.

p. 216, margin A

4

In view of the above, we deem it appropriate to set aside the order passed by the High Court. As noticed above, instead of leaving the parties to seek their remedy in accordance with law, the matter ought to have been referred to a specific arbitrator. Learned counsel for the parties are agreed that we appoint Mr. Justice A.P. Shah, former Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court, residing at F-6A, Hauz Khas Enclave, New Delhi-110 016, as the Arbitrator. We order accordingly. The learned Arbitrator shall be at liberty to determine his remuneration/fees in consultation with the parties. SACHIN GUPTA AND ANOTHER v. K.S. FORGE 217 METAL PRIVATE LIMITED

pp. 216–217, margin F

5

It is made clear that the arbitrator shall proceed with the A arbitration proceedings without, in any manner, being influenced by any observations made either by the learned Single Judge or by the Division Bench of the High Court.

p. 217

6

The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of. R.P. Appeal disposed of.

p. 217