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

SURESH RAGHO DESAI & ANR. versus SMT. VIJAYA VINAYAK GHAG & ANR.

Decided
29 August 1988
Judges listed
SABYASACHI MUKHERJI, S. RANGANATHAN (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Dismissed

Citations

Official
[1988] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 641 · 1988 INSC 248
Not shown
2 other citation strings that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.

Cited by

Cited in 1 other Supreme Court judgment we hold.

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. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J. The High Court of Bombay dis-.

p. 641, margin H

641 missed the challenge to the award In question. The award is an unreasoned one. The transactions between the parties started sometime in 1974. The petitioners participated in the reference in 1979. without demur. In 1981, the award was made. No objection was taken at that time that the award was bad being an umeasoned one. The matter is pending for a long time. It is not desirable, in the interest ofjustice, to keep this matter pending because some cases are pending here on the question elf the validity of unreasoned award per se. The parties participated in the arbitration. There is no allegation of any violation of principles of natural justice. One of the contentions in support of this application was that releyant documents had not been taken into consideration. The High Court has pointed out on reading the award that it does not indicate that all relevant documents had not been taken into consideration. On the facts of this case, from the records and on the face of the award there is no mistake of law apparent on the face of the award or gross mistake of facts resulting in the miscarriage of justice or of equity. In the premises it would be unjust under Article 136 of the Constitution to interfere or keep the finding at bay.

pp. 641–642, margin H

The Special Leave Petition fails and is, therefore, dismissed. P.S.S. Petition dismissed.

p. 642, margin D