{"id":82259,"date":"2010-08-26T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-08-25T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-sanwal-coal-carriers-vs-western-coalfields-limited-on-26-august-2010"},"modified":"2016-04-22T17:03:09","modified_gmt":"2016-04-22T11:33:09","slug":"ms-sanwal-coal-carriers-vs-western-coalfields-limited-on-26-august-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-sanwal-coal-carriers-vs-western-coalfields-limited-on-26-august-2010","title":{"rendered":"M\/S. Sanwal Coal Carriers vs Western Coalfields Limited on 26 August, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
M\/S. Sanwal Coal Carriers vs Western Coalfields Limited on 26 August, 2010<\/div>\n
Bench: B. P. Dharmadhikari<\/div>\n
                                        1\n\n\n\n\n                                                                         \n                                                 \n             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n                       NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.\n\n\n\n\n                                                \n                     WRIT PETITION  No.  2888 OF 2010.\n\n\n    M\/s. Sanwal Coal Carriers,\n\n\n\n\n                                       \n    through its Proprietor,\n    Shri  Rajveersingh  Sanwal,\n                        \n    Allapalli Road, Ballarpur,\n    District - Chandrapur. (MS)                             ....PETITIONER. \n                       \n                                    VERSUS\n      \n\n\n       1. Western Coalfields Limited,\n          through its Chairman cum\n   \n\n\n\n          Managing Director, Civil Lines,\n          Nagpur.\n\n       2. Western Coalfields Limited,\n\n\n\n\n\n          through its General Manager\n          (CMC), Civil Lines,\n          Nagpur.\n\n       3. Western Coalfields Lmited,\n\n\n\n\n\n          through its Chief General\n          Manager, Wani North Area,\n          Wani, District Chandrapur.                   .....RESPONDENTS\n                                                                       . \n\n\n\n                           -----------------------------------\n                   Mr. G.C. Singh, Advocate for Petitioner.\n                 Mr.  S.C. Mehadia, Advocate for Respondents.\n                           -----------------------------------\n\n\n\n                                                 ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 16:20:02 :::\n                                                2\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                     \n                                                             \n                              CORAM :  B.P. DHARMADHIKARI,  J. \n<\/pre>\n
    Date of reserving the Judgment. -                    11th August, 2010.\n    Date of Pronouncement.          -                    26th August, 2010.\n\n                  \n\n\n\n\n                                              \n    JUDGEMENT.   \n\n\n     \n                             \n                            \n<\/pre>\n
    1.           The challenge in this Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 <\/p>\n
    of   Constitution   of   India   is   to   order   styled   as   interim   award   dated <\/p>\n
    25\/3\/2010   by   arbitrator   in   dispute   between   petition   and   respondent.\n<\/p>\n
    Dispute   arose   out   of   contract   for   driving   pay-loaders   and   tippers   for <\/p>\n
    loading coal into trucks\/tippers from ground stock and its transportation.\n<\/p>\n
    By consent of parties it has been referred to sole arbitrator  Mr. B. R.\n<\/p>\n
    Harne   on   20\/7\/2009   under   Arbitration   and   Conciliation   Act,   1996 <\/p>\n
    (hereinafter to as “the Act”   hereafter).   It is not necessary to go into <\/p>\n
    controversy   leading   to   stoppage   or   termination   of   that   contract.     For <\/p>\n
    present purposes, it is necessary only to note the case of petitioner that <\/p>\n
    Chief General Manager of respondent on 20\/3\/2006 issued a notice to <\/p>\n
    petitioner to resume work within 15 days and before that on 11\/3\/2006 <\/p>\n
    work was given to another transporter who started it.   It is the case of <\/p>\n
                                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:20:02 :::<\/span>
\n                                               3<\/span><\/p>\n
    petitioner that report of committee constituted by respondent regarding <\/p>\n
    imposition of penalty, forecloser \/termination and other aspects having <\/p>\n
    bearing on contract with petitioner indicating conclusions in his favour <\/p>\n
    as   another   agency   had   resume   work   even   before   expiry   of   period   of <\/p>\n
    notice   dated   20\/03\/2006   is   being   suppressed.     It   therefore   filed   an <\/p>\n
    application before arbitrator on 5\/12\/2009 to direct respondents to place <\/p>\n
    on record complete report of that committee.  On 16\/01\/2010 petitioner <\/p>\n
    pointed   out   that   respondents   have   on   15\/01\/2010   refused   to   submit <\/p>\n
    complete report by filing application and hence sought hearing on that <\/p>\n
    application.     On   03\/02\/2010   petitioner   placed   on   record   a   note <\/p>\n
    explaining relevance of report of committee and also on other issue of <\/p>\n
    weighment of transported coal. On 20\/02\/2010 respondent also placed <\/p>\n
    its brief note on record.  In this background sole arbitrator has passed the <\/p>\n
    impugned order on 25\/03\/2010 styling it as “interim report” on its cover <\/p>\n
    page and as “interim order” at its commencement and also at its end.  On <\/p>\n
    issue no. 1 before him regarding filing of committee’s report, arbitrator <\/p>\n
    found that that report has no legal standing and it cannot be treated as <\/p>\n
    relevant document.    On  issue     no. 2 about  weighment  of   transported <\/p>\n
    coal, he found that system of delivery, weighment and preparation of bill <\/p>\n
    was without any fault and was accepted by contractor all through the <\/p>\n
    contract.     He   also   noted   that   respondents   have   to   prove   that   coal <\/p>\n
                                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:20:02 :::<\/span>
\n                                                  4<\/span><\/p>\n
    delivered   to   other   contractors   was   fully   accounted   for   in   total   coal <\/p>\n
    transported by petitioner and was paid for.   He therefore directed that <\/p>\n
    both parties should jointly reconcile dispatch data and arrive at correct <\/p>\n
    figures in this respect. Looking to the nature of controversy, writ petition <\/p>\n
    is heard finally by making Rule returnable forthwith, by consent.\n<\/p>\n
    2.           Shri Singh, learned Counsel for Petitioner has contended that <\/p>\n
    no oral arguments were heard on issue no. 2 and thus findings delivered <\/p>\n
    thereon are unsustainable.   Regarding issue no.1, the learned Counsel <\/p>\n
    states that grievance as made can be taken note of in writ jurisdiction <\/p>\n
    and   appropriate   writ   in   the   nature   of   prohibition   can   be   issued   to <\/p>\n
    arbitrator.     He   has   relied   upon   several   judgments   to   drive   home   this <\/p>\n
    contention.  He has further stated that respondent being public authority <\/p>\n
    cannot behave like a private individual and refuse to tender on record <\/p>\n
    relevant piece of evidence.  The committee was constituted as per order <\/p>\n
    dated 10\/07\/2006 and that committee consisting of superior officers also <\/p>\n
    invited   petitioner   and   thereafter   has   submitted   a   report.     Report <\/p>\n
    considers   material   on   record   with   evidence   and   finding   therein   is   in <\/p>\n
    favour of petitioner.  According to him arbitrator cannot be permitted to <\/p>\n
    proceed   further   without   securing   that   report   on   record   of   Arbitration <\/p>\n
    proceedings.     The   finding   that   report   has   no   legal   sanctity   or   is   not <\/p>\n
                                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:20:02 :::<\/span>
\n                                                5<\/span><\/p>\n
    irrelevant   document   is   also   assailed   by   him   in   this   background.\n<\/p>\n
    According to him, arbitrator has no jurisdiction to deliver any interim <\/p>\n
    award.   He   points   out   that   no   responsible   officer   of   respondents   has <\/p>\n
    passed any order prohibiting production of that report on record.  I, find <\/p>\n
    it appropriate to consider his contention in this respect little latter along <\/p>\n
    with case law cited by him.\n<\/p>\n
    3.<\/p>\n
                 Shri Mehadia, learned Counsel for respondents has stated that <\/p>\n
    Writ Petition is not maintainable and petitioner has to wait till arbitrator <\/p>\n
    delivers   final   award   which   alone   can   thereafter   be   challenged   as   per <\/p>\n
    legal procedure.   According to him the constitution bench judgment of <\/p>\n
    Hon’ble Apex Court in  SBP &CO. Vs Patel Engineering Ltd and another <\/p>\n
    reported   at   (2005)   8   SCC   618   –   AIR   2006   SC   450     concludes   this <\/p>\n
    controversy   and   subsequent   judgments   of   Courts   taking   view   to   the <\/p>\n
    contrary must yield to it.   He states that there is nothing wrong with <\/p>\n
    application of mind on legal status of report of committee by arbitrator <\/p>\n
    and as there is no jurisdictional error, this Court cannot interfere at this <\/p>\n
    stage.  He further states that when written notes of argument were filed <\/p>\n
    before arbitrator, grievance about denial of oral hearing is misconceived <\/p>\n
    and deserves to be rejected.   According to him, no writ can be issued <\/p>\n
    against arbitrator which clearly is only a private administrative body.\n<\/p>\n
                                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:20:02 :::<\/span>
\n                                                 6<\/span><\/p>\n
    4.           Shri Singh, learned Counsel in his reply has contended that <\/p>\n
    judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court and of Division  Bench of this  Court <\/p>\n
    permit intervention in writ jurisdiction in appropriate circumstances to <\/p>\n
    see that situation does not become irreversible and errors are corrected <\/p>\n
    without causing any prejudice to the parties.  He further invites attention <\/p>\n
    to various judgments to show how only ratio operates as precedent and <\/p>\n
    to demonstrate that Hon’ble Constitution Bench does not lay down any <\/p>\n
    legal proposition binding under Article  141.  According to him, en-route <\/p>\n
    correction in present matter is the most vital need.\n<\/p>\n
    5.           In SBP  &CO. Vs  Patel  Engineering Ltd and another  (supra) <\/p>\n
    relied upon by respondents, the scheme of the Act is noted and  it is laid <\/p>\n
    down   that   the   party   aggrieved   by   any   order   of   the   Arbitral   Tribunal, <\/p>\n
    unless has a right of appeal under Section 37 of the Act, has to wait until <\/p>\n
    the   award   is   passed   by   the   Tribunal.   Approach   of     High   Courts   in <\/p>\n
    presuming   that   any   order   passed   by   an   Arbitral   Tribunal   during <\/p>\n
    arbitration, would be capable of being challenged under Article 226 or <\/p>\n
    227 of the Constitution of India is held to be unwarranted. Arbitrator is <\/p>\n
    found to be a forum chosen by the parties by agreement and intervention <\/p>\n
    by   the   High   Courts   is   declared   not   permissible   as   the   object   of <\/p>\n
                                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:20:02 :::<\/span>
\n                                                  7<\/span><\/p>\n
    minimizing judicial intervention   will stand defeated if the High Court <\/p>\n
    could be approached under Article 227 of the Constitution of India or <\/p>\n
    under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against every order made <\/p>\n
    by   the   Arbitral   Tribunal.   Therefore,   Hon’ble   Apex   Court   found     it <\/p>\n
    necessary  to  indicate   that   once   the  arbitration   has   commenced  in   the <\/p>\n
    Arbitral   Tribunal,   parties   have   to   wait   until   the   award   is   pronounced <\/p>\n
    unless, of course, a right of appeal is available to them under Section 37 <\/p>\n
    of the Act even at an earlier stage. Its conclusions separately recorded <\/p>\n
    also reiterate this principle as :-\n<\/p>\n
                   “(vi)  Once the matter reaches the arbitral tribunal  <\/p>\n
                   or   the   sole  arbitrator,  the   High   Court   would   not
\n                   interfere with orders passed by the arbitrator or the
\n                   arbitral   tribunal   during   the   course   of   the  <\/p>\n
                   arbitration   proceedings   and   the   parties   could
\n                   approach the court only in terms of Section 37 of
\n                   the Act or in terms of Section 34 of the Act”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                 AIR 1999 Bom. 219 (Anuptech Equipments Pvt. Ltd., M\/s. v.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    M\/s. Ganpati Co-op Hsg. Socy. Ltd.) is the judgment of Learned Single <\/p>\n
    Judge of this Court holding that if against decision by Arbitral Tribunal <\/p>\n
    remedy is not provided in Act, writ can be issued as tribunal would be <\/p>\n
                                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:20:02 :::<\/span>
\n                                            8<\/span><\/p>\n
    “person” to whom writ would go under Article  226 of the Constitution of <\/p>\n
    India.\n<\/p>\n
               2008(1) Bom. C.R. 768 — (Dowell Leasing and   Finance Co.\n<\/p>\n
    vs. Radheshyam B. Khandelwal)  is the Division Bench judgment of this <\/p>\n
    Court which considers Constitution  Bench Judgment of Hon’ble   Apex <\/p>\n
    Court in paragraph no. 9 and observers that said judgment does not say <\/p>\n
    that no writ can go to an Arbitral Tribunal or then such Tribunal is not a <\/p>\n
    person to whom a writ cannot be issued.  Discussion therein shows that <\/p>\n
    such an intervention is held permissible when there is no other remedy <\/p>\n
    under the Act.  Division Bench of Calcutta High Court in Bharat Sanchar <\/p>\n
    Nigam Ltd. vs. BMW Industries Ltd reported at A.I.R. 2007 (NOC) 1715 <\/p>\n
    (CAL), has held that power of High Court under Articles 226 and 227  is <\/p>\n
    a basic structure of Constitution and same cannot be curtailed by Section <\/p>\n
    5 of Act.  In view of the Division Bench judgment of this Court, I do not <\/p>\n
    find it necessary to refer to other judgment in case of (1997) 3 SCC 261–\n<\/p>\n
    AIR 1997  S.C.  1125  (L. Chandra Kumar v. Union  of India)<\/a>  about the <\/p>\n
    basic structure of Constitution.\n<\/p>\n
               In   (2006)   1  SCC   540     (Transmission   Corporation   vs   Lanco <\/p>\n
    Kondapalli Power), the<\/a> appellant before Hon’ble Apex Court contended <\/p>\n
                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:20:02 :::<\/span>
\n                                               9<\/span><\/p>\n
    that jurisdiction of civil court was barred because of provisions of A.P.\n<\/p>\n
    Electricity  Reforms  Act,  1998  and Electricity  Act 2003.    Hon’ble   Apex <\/p>\n
    Court noticed that it raised a tribale issue and hence it was left open for <\/p>\n
    consideration by High Court in writ petition as well as in application filed <\/p>\n
    by respondent under Section 11 of Act.  In said writ petition, respondent <\/p>\n
    before Hon’ble Apex Court had sought order restraining commission from <\/p>\n
    adjudicating  the  dispute  under  1998  Act from High  Court.    The  High <\/p>\n
    Court had already granted interim relief to respondent in said challenge <\/p>\n
    to order of Civil Court under Section 9 of Act.  The judgment therefore is <\/p>\n
    of no help in present matter.\n<\/p>\n
    6.          Petitioner has relied upon (1991) 4 SCC 139– (State of U. P.\n<\/p>\n
    and Another vs Synthetics  & Chemicals Ltd and another)  to point out <\/p>\n
    how for the purposes of Article 141 “law declared” has been understood.\n<\/p>\n
    Decision   not   express   nor   founded   on   the   reasons   nor   proceeding   on <\/p>\n
    consideration of the issue cannot be deemed to be a precedent declaring <\/p>\n
    law.   For same purpose reliance is also placed on (2002) 8 SCC 481-\n<\/p>\n
    (T.M.A.  Pai  Foundation  and   others   vs  State  of  Karnataka   and  others<\/a>) <\/p>\n
    where it is explained that ratio decidendi of a judgment is to be found out <\/p>\n
    only on reading of entire judgment and it cannot be read as a statute.\n<\/p>\n
    A.I.R. 1979 SC 1384 – (Dalbir Singh vs. State of Punjab),<\/a> is also pressed <\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:20:02 :::<\/span>
\n                                                  10<\/span><\/p>\n
    into service by him to show 3 basic ingredients of a binding precedent.\n<\/p>\n
                  Dowell Leasing & Finance Co. vs. Radheshyam B. Khandelwal <\/p>\n
    (supra)  is  the   Division   Bench  judgment  of   this   Court   which   considers <\/p>\n
    Constitution Bench Judgment of Hon’ble  Apex Court and hence it is not <\/p>\n
    necessary for me to consider all these judgments of Hon’ble  Apex Court.\n<\/p>\n
                  AIR   2007   S.C.   168   (Paramjeet   Singh   Patheja   v.   ICDS   Ltd.)<\/a> <\/p>\n
    relied on by respondent does not show that a writ cannot be issued to <\/p>\n
    arbitrator.  It holds that no insolvency notice can be issued under Section <\/p>\n
    9 (2) of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act, 1909 on the basis of an <\/p>\n
    Arbitration   Award  as   it   does   not   satisfy   any   of   the   requirements   of   a <\/p>\n
    decree. Hon’ble   Apex Court has pointed out that issuance of a notice <\/p>\n
    under   the   Insolvency   Act   is   fraught   with   serious   consequences:   it   is <\/p>\n
    intended   to   bring   about   a   drastic   change   in   the   status   of   the   person <\/p>\n
    against whom a notice is issued viz. to declare him an insolvent with all <\/p>\n
    the attendant disabilities. Therefore, the Hon’ble Apex Court states that <\/p>\n
    firstly,   such   a   notice   is   intended   to   be   issued   only   after   a   regularly <\/p>\n
    constituted   Court,   a   component   of   judicial   organ   established   for   the <\/p>\n
    dispensation of justice, has passed a decree or order for the payment of <\/p>\n
    money. Secondly, a notice  under the Insolvency Act is not a mode of <\/p>\n
                                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:20:02 :::<\/span>
\n                                               11<\/span><\/p>\n
    enforcing   a   debt;   enforcement   is   done   by   taking   steps   for   execution <\/p>\n
    available under the C. P. C. for realizing moneys. The words “as if” are <\/p>\n
    held to   demonstrate that award and decree or order are two different <\/p>\n
    things. The legal fiction created is declared for the limited purpose of <\/p>\n
    enforcement as a decree. The fiction is not intended to make it a decree <\/p>\n
    for   all   purposes   under   all   statutes,   whether   State   or   Central.\n<\/p>\n
    Observations   in   this   judgment   in   paragraph   46   and   47   need   to   be <\/p>\n
    understood in this background and it does not in any way militate with <\/p>\n
    the view of Division Bench of this Court in Dowell Leasing & Finance Co.\n<\/p>\n
    vs. Radheshyam B. Khandelwal (supra).\n<\/p>\n
    7.           In AIR 1993 S.C. 352 (R. N. Gosain v. Yashpal Dhir),  Hon’ble <\/p>\n
    Apex Court<\/a> states that “approbate and reprobate”   is not permissible and <\/p>\n
    said principle, is based on doctrine of election.   Law does not permit a <\/p>\n
    person to both approbate and reprobate. No party can accept and reject <\/p>\n
    the   same  instrument and  that  “a person cannot say at one time that a  <\/p>\n
    transaction is valid and thereby obtain some advantage, to which he could  <\/p>\n
    only be entitled on the footing that it is valid, and then turn round and say it  <\/p>\n
    is void for the purpose of securing some other advantage.” Thus Apex Court <\/p>\n
    holds that the tenant having given an undertaking in pursuance to the <\/p>\n
    directions   given   by   the   High   Court   and   having   availed   the   protection <\/p>\n
                                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:20:02 :::<\/span>
\n                                                 12<\/span><\/p>\n
    from eviction on the basis of the said undertaking, cannot be permitted <\/p>\n
    to   invoke   the   jurisdiction   of   this   Court   under   Article     136   of   the <\/p>\n
    Constitution   and   assail   the   said   judgment   of   the   High   Court.     This <\/p>\n
    principle   is   not   applicable   in   present   matter   as   respondents   have   not <\/p>\n
    chosen   to   rely   upon   the   report   of   committee   of   which   production   is <\/p>\n
    sought by present petitioner.  If hereafter respondents take shelter of that <\/p>\n
    report,   the   petitioner   may   be   justified   in   invoking   this   doctrine.     AIR <\/p>\n
    1966 S.C. 875  (Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U. P.\n<\/p>\n
    Allahabad   v.   Bagleshwar   Prasad)  shows   that   an   order   passed   by   a <\/p>\n
    Tribunal holding a quasi-judicial enquiry which is not supported by any <\/p>\n
    evidence, is an order which is erroneous on the face of it and as such, is <\/p>\n
    liable to be quashed by the High Court in exercise of its high prerogative <\/p>\n
    jurisdiction to issue a writ under Article  226.   The Hon’ble  Apex Court <\/p>\n
    states that inquiries held by such domestic Tribunals in such cases must, <\/p>\n
    no doubt, be fair and students against whom charges are framed must be <\/p>\n
    given adequate opportunities to defend themselves, and in holding such <\/p>\n
    inquiries, the Tribunals must scrupulously follow rules of natural justice, <\/p>\n
    but   it   would   not   be   reasonable   to   import   into   these   inquiries   all <\/p>\n
    considerations  which  govern  criminal  trials  in   ordinary  Courts   of   law.\n<\/p>\n
    AIR   1965   S.C.   111   (T.   Prem   Sagar   v.   M\/s   Standard   Vacuum   Oil <\/p>\n
    Company, Madras)<\/a>  shows that a writ of   Certiorari can be issued and <\/p>\n
                                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:20:02 :::<\/span>
\n                                               13<\/span><\/p>\n
    decision of Labour Commissioner about question of status though made <\/p>\n
    final can be quashed by writ if there is error apparent on face of record.\n<\/p>\n
    As   already   noted   above,   argument   is   of   not   granting   hearing   before <\/p>\n
    passing orders on issue number 2 about the weighment of transported <\/p>\n
    coal.   Consideration of said issue by arbitrator shows reference to brief <\/p>\n
    note filed by petitioner before him.  Note was in addition to application <\/p>\n
    i.e. pleadings of petitioner.  Petitioner has specifically urged on affidavit <\/p>\n
    before this Court that said issue was never argued and under directions <\/p>\n
    of arbitrator, reconciliation was being tried to reconcile the quantity of <\/p>\n
    transported   coal.     Affidavit   also   discloses   some   CBI   inquiry   into <\/p>\n
    unauthorized sale of coal and oral intimation to arbitrator that original <\/p>\n
    measurement   books   and   records   are   with   CBI   and   inability   to   supply <\/p>\n
    photocopies.  These assertions have remained unchallenged in this Court.\n<\/p>\n
    I do not find it necessary to conclude any of these facts and findings here <\/p>\n
    are only on aspect of “hearing”. Grievance of denial of opportunity to <\/p>\n
    argue  with  above  submission  about  reconciliation  is  also  made   before <\/p>\n
    arbitrator  immediately on 05.04.2010.    A brief note  is  also placed on <\/p>\n
    record   before   arbitrator   by   respondents.     Neither   “note”   filed   by <\/p>\n
    petitioner   nor   “brief   note”   filed   by   respondents   mention   the   same   as <\/p>\n
    written   note   of   argument.     Why   and   whether   arbitrator   treated   it   as <\/p>\n
    written note of arguments is itself not clear.   Perusal of other part of <\/p>\n
                                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:20:02 :::<\/span>
\n                                                  14<\/span><\/p>\n
    order   on   report   of   committee   shows   consideration   of   precedents   not <\/p>\n
    forming   part   of   said   note   of   petitioner.     It   is   therefore   obvious   that <\/p>\n
    finding   about   no   fault   in   system   of   coal   delivery   weighment   and <\/p>\n
    preparation   of   bill   or   acquiescence   therein   by   petitioner   has   been <\/p>\n
    recorded without giving opportunity to the  parties.   The finding is on <\/p>\n
    important aspect of controversy and cannot be reopened at least during <\/p>\n
    pendency of proceedings before arbitrator.  If said error is corrected right <\/p>\n
    now it will save the situation for everybody.  Hence interim award\/order <\/p>\n
    on issue no.  2 cannot be sustained.  Same is accordingly quashed and set <\/p>\n
    aside   with   direction   to   re-decide   the   same   after   giving   parties <\/p>\n
    opportunity of hearing in accordance with law.\n<\/p>\n
    8.           Issue no. 1 about report of committee has been decided after <\/p>\n
    oral arguments and also in the light of precedents cited.   Committee is <\/p>\n
    constituted on 10\/7\/2006 to examine case of foreclosure\/termination of <\/p>\n
    contract and to submit report to managing director of the respondents.\n<\/p>\n
    It is obvious that said committee therefore has to look into material like <\/p>\n
    correspondence, measurement books and other evidence and arrive at its <\/p>\n
    conclusions   and   submit   the   same   to   Managing   Director.     The   report <\/p>\n
    therefore is nothing but appreciation of part of controversy by committee <\/p>\n
    members and said appreciation is not binding on anybody.   It appears <\/p>\n
                                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:20:02 :::<\/span>
\n                                               15<\/span><\/p>\n
    that   the   committee   had   also   obtained   legal   opinion   and   made   some <\/p>\n
    observations about the liability of Petitioner in the matter. These findings <\/p>\n
    and   report   of   committee   at   this   stage  is   not  even  a  secondary   piece <\/p>\n
    which   can   be   used   for   co-lateral   purposes.     The   report   of   committee <\/p>\n
    therefore at the most may be a  document to be used in future indicating <\/p>\n
    evidence looked into or not looked into by it.  The arbitrator cannot act <\/p>\n
    upon such report either in favour of petitioner or against him.  He has to <\/p>\n
    independently record his findings on disputed issues on the strength of <\/p>\n
    material   brought   before   him   by   parties.     Said   report   has   not   been <\/p>\n
    obtained in pursuance of contract agreement between parties and hence, <\/p>\n
    is   not   a   piece   of   evidence   at   all.   Respondents   are   not   under   any <\/p>\n
    obligation to produce it and, it is apparent that no such direction can be <\/p>\n
    issued   to  it.       There  is   no  requirement  of   respondents   producing   any <\/p>\n
    order with-holding its production and its status as an instrumentality or <\/p>\n
    state has no bearing here at all.   Findings recorded on issue no. 1 by <\/p>\n
    arbitrator   in   the   light   of   arguments   advanced   cannot   be   said   to   be <\/p>\n
    without jurisdiction or perverse.  Merely because he labels his findings as <\/p>\n
    “interim report” or “interim order”, application of mind by him does not <\/p>\n
    get vitiated.  It is petitioner who filed application and invited arbitrator <\/p>\n
    to pass orders on his prayers therein. Such orders passed by arbitrator on <\/p>\n
    said application cannot be challenged by him on such technical grounds.\n<\/p>\n
                                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:20:02 :::<\/span>
\n                                               16<\/span><\/p>\n
    No   interference   is   therefore   warranted   in   writ   jurisdiction   insofar   as <\/p>\n
    order of arbitrator on issue no. 1 is concerned.\n<\/p>\n
    9.           With the result, Writ Petition is partly allowed and   “interim <\/p>\n
    report” or “interim order” passed by arbitrator on 25\/03\/2010 insofar as <\/p>\n
    it relates to issue no. 2 is only quashed and set aside.  Its remaining part <\/p>\n
    relating to issue no. 1 is upheld.  Arbitrator shall hear both parties before <\/p>\n
    him on issue no. 2 and thereafter pass fresh orders on it.  Rule is made <\/p>\n
    absolute accordingly with no orders as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                       JUDGE<\/p>\n
    Rgd.\n<\/p>\n
                                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:20:02 :::<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court M\/S. Sanwal Coal Carriers vs Western Coalfields Limited on 26 August, 2010 Bench: B. P. Dharmadhikari 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION No. 2888 OF 2010. M\/s. Sanwal Coal Carriers, through its Proprietor, Shri Rajveersingh Sanwal, Allapalli Road, Ballarpur, District – Chandrapur. (MS) ….PETITIONER. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[11,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-82259","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nM\/S. Sanwal Coal Carriers vs Western Coalfields Limited on 26 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-sanwal-coal-carriers-vs-western-coalfields-limited-on-26-august-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M\/S. Sanwal Coal Carriers vs Western Coalfields Limited on 26 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-sanwal-coal-carriers-vs-western-coalfields-limited-on-26-august-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-08-25T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-04-22T11:33:09+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"17 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-sanwal-coal-carriers-vs-western-coalfields-limited-on-26-august-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-sanwal-coal-carriers-vs-western-coalfields-limited-on-26-august-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M\\\/S. Sanwal Coal Carriers vs Western Coalfields Limited on 26 August, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-08-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-22T11:33:09+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-sanwal-coal-carriers-vs-western-coalfields-limited-on-26-august-2010\"},\"wordCount\":3233,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Bombay High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-sanwal-coal-carriers-vs-western-coalfields-limited-on-26-august-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-sanwal-coal-carriers-vs-western-coalfields-limited-on-26-august-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-sanwal-coal-carriers-vs-western-coalfields-limited-on-26-august-2010\",\"name\":\"M\\\/S. Sanwal Coal Carriers vs Western Coalfields Limited on 26 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-08-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-22T11:33:09+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-sanwal-coal-carriers-vs-western-coalfields-limited-on-26-august-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-sanwal-coal-carriers-vs-western-coalfields-limited-on-26-august-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-sanwal-coal-carriers-vs-western-coalfields-limited-on-26-august-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M\\\/S. Sanwal Coal Carriers vs Western Coalfields Limited on 26 August, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"M\/S. Sanwal Coal Carriers vs Western Coalfields Limited on 26 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-sanwal-coal-carriers-vs-western-coalfields-limited-on-26-august-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M\/S. Sanwal Coal Carriers vs Western Coalfields Limited on 26 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-sanwal-coal-carriers-vs-western-coalfields-limited-on-26-august-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-08-25T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-04-22T11:33:09+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"17 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-sanwal-coal-carriers-vs-western-coalfields-limited-on-26-august-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-sanwal-coal-carriers-vs-western-coalfields-limited-on-26-august-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M\/S. Sanwal Coal Carriers vs Western Coalfields Limited on 26 August, 2010","datePublished":"2010-08-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-22T11:33:09+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-sanwal-coal-carriers-vs-western-coalfields-limited-on-26-august-2010"},"wordCount":3233,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Bombay High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-sanwal-coal-carriers-vs-western-coalfields-limited-on-26-august-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-sanwal-coal-carriers-vs-western-coalfields-limited-on-26-august-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-sanwal-coal-carriers-vs-western-coalfields-limited-on-26-august-2010","name":"M\/S. Sanwal Coal Carriers vs Western Coalfields Limited on 26 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-08-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-22T11:33:09+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-sanwal-coal-carriers-vs-western-coalfields-limited-on-26-august-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-sanwal-coal-carriers-vs-western-coalfields-limited-on-26-august-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-sanwal-coal-carriers-vs-western-coalfields-limited-on-26-august-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M\/S. Sanwal Coal Carriers vs Western Coalfields Limited on 26 August, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/82259","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=82259"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/82259\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=82259"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=82259"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=82259"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}