Delhi High Court
Sh. Manish Bhalla And Anr vs Sh. Mridul Gupta on 7 January, 2022
$~19
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 07.01.2022
+ MAC.APP. 324/2021 & CM APPL. 44173/2021
SH. MANISH BHALLA AND ANR ..... Appellants
versus
SH. MRIDUL GUPTA ..... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Vineet Jain, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Somnath Parashar, Advocate.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
1. The hearing was conducted through video conferencing.
2. Appellants impugn award dated 21.09.2021 whereby the
detailed accident report has been allowed and compensation awarded.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the Tribunal did
not grant an opportunity of final hearing and has erroneously recorded
that arguments were heard and the award has been passed.
4. Learned counsel submits that the matter was listed before the
Tribunal on 18.08.2021 when only the party in person i.e. appellant
No.1 was present. Tribunal recorded that part final arguments heard
Signature Not Verified
MAC.APP.324/2021 Digitally Signed1
By:JUSTICE SANJEEV
Digitally Signed By:KUNAL SACHDEVA
MAGGU Signing Date:07.01.2022
Signing Date:08.01.2022 10:22:26 20:26
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
and thereafter case was adjourned to 06.09.2021 for remaining final
arguments, however, on 06.09.2021 only the claimant was present and
the matter was adjourned to 14.09.2021 for the remaining arguments.
He points out that on 14.09.2021 no further arguments were heard and
matter was simply adjourned to 21.09.2021 for clarification/orders.
5. Learned counsel submits that though appellant was not present
he was not even proceeded ex parte or ex parte arguments heard after
18.08.2021. Learned counsel submits that however on 21.09.2021 the
impugned award has been passed holding that arguments have been
heard on behalf of the appellant.
6. Clearly there is an error on the face of the record and the
Tribunal has erred in holding that arguments have been heard when
the arguments even of the claimant were not concluded.
7. Accordingly, in view of the above the award is not sustainable
and is accordingly set aside. The matter is remitted to the Tribunal for
a fresh decision after granting an opportunity of hearing. Parties shall
appear before the Tribunal for directions on 27.01.2022. Tribunal shall
endeavor to thereafter conclude the proceedings within a maximum
period of three months from the said date.
8. It is clarified that this Court has neither considered nor
commented upon the merits of the impugned award and the same has
been set aside solely on the ground of lack of grant of opportunity of
hearing to the appellants. All rights and contentions of parties are
reserved.
Signature Not Verified
MAC.APP.324/2021 Digitally Signed2
By:JUSTICE SANJEEV
Digitally Signed By:KUNAL SACHDEVA
MAGGU Signing Date:07.01.2022
Signing Date:08.01.2022 10:22:26 20:26
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
9. The statutory deposit made by the appellants be refunded to the
appellants by the Registry.
10. Appeal is allowed in the above terms.
11. Copy of the order be uploaded on the High Court website and
be also forwarded to learned counsels through email by the Court
Master.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.
JANUARY 07, 2022
rk
Signature Not Verified
MAC.APP.324/2021 Digitally Signed3
By:JUSTICE SANJEEV
Digitally Signed By:KUNAL SACHDEVA
MAGGU Signing Date:07.01.2022
Signing Date:08.01.2022 10:22:26 20:26
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
