Special Leave Petition Civil No 2391 of 1987
From the Judgment and Order dated 221086 of the Bombay High Court in Appeal No 43982
SB Bhasme and AS Bhasme for the Petitioners
AK Gupta for the Respondents
The Judgment
of the Court was delivered by SABYASACHI MUKHARJI J
The High Court of Bombay dismissed PG NO 641 PG NO 642 the challenge to the award in question
The award is an unreasoned one
The transactions between the parties started some time 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 unreasoned one
The matter is pending for a long time
It is not desirable in the interest of justice to keep this matter pending because some cases are pending here on the question of 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 relevant 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
The Special Leave Petition fails and is therefore dismissed
PSS Petition dismissed


Summary:
The rule that a statute is not to have retrospective operation can apply only where it is doubtful from the language used whether or not it was intended to have such operation
Where the language of the statute plainly gives it a retrospective operation there can be no scope for applying the rule of presumption against retrospective operation
The rule does not require that the Courts should be obdurate in refusing to give a statute retrospective operation equally it does not justify the reading of more words than there are into the statute in order that the rule may apply
Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co Ltd vs Income Tax Com missioner Delhi 1927 L R 54 IA 421 Smith vs Callander and Reid vs Reid  considered
The appellant brought a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale in the High Court of Indore at a time when Indore was a Princely State in British India
On April 22 1948 the Rulers of Gwalior Indore and certain other States entered into a Covenant to form the United State of Gwalior Indore and Malwa Madhya Bharat
The suit was heard by a single Judge and decreed on June 11 1948
The Ruler of Indore on June 16 1948 made over the administration of his State to the Raj Pramukh of the United State in terms of the Covenant
By an ordinance promulgated by the Raj Pramukh a High Court was established for the United State and the High Court of Indore ceased to function from July 29 1948
The respondents preferred an appeal to the Divisional Bench of the High Court of the United State on August 24 1948 and the appellant preferred a cross appeal under the provisions of that Ordinance
The Divisional Bench found in favour of the respondents in both the appeal and cross appeal and dismissed the appellant s suit by a judgment dated December 2 1948
The Interim Legislative Assembly of the United State enacted the United State of Gwalior Indore and Malwa Madhya Bharat High Court of Judicature Act VIII Of 1949 which came into force on January 18 1949 and repealed the Ordinance
40 314 By section 2b of the Act it was provided  This Act shall apply to all Criminal and civil proceedings including those under
testamentary intestate matrimonial divorce and insolvency jurisdiction pending in the courts in any State on the date on which the State is included in the united State and to such proceedings arising in the said states after those dates
By section 25 it was provided  Special appeal shall lie to the Full Bench of the High court from  1 a decree or an appealable order passed by the Divisional Bench of two judges Of the High Court in the exercise of extraordinary or appellate civil jurisdiction
The appellant preferred an appeal to the Full Bench of the High Court under section 25 against
the judgment of the Divisional Bench
The Full Bench dismissed the appeal as incompetent holding that section 25 could not be given retrospective operation so as to disturb the right that had vested in the respondents as to the finality of the judgment of the Divisional Bench which was passed before the Act came into force  Held that section 25 Of the Act although not in terms retrospective has to be read with section 2b of the Act which made the Act and consequently section 25 applicable to the proceedings mentioned in it and since the appeal before the Divisional Bench filed after the inclusion of the State of Indore in the United State was beyond doubt one of such proceedings the competency of the appeal could not be questioned
Although there can be no hard and fast rule that in no case should the pre existing law be referred to for the purpose of interpreting a new enactment where as in the present case the language is simple free from doubt and clearly indicates that a change in the pre existing law is intended and no reason existed requiring a reference to the pre existing law no such reference is permissible
Tumahole Bereng vs The King  Abdur Rahim vs Mohomed Barkat Ali 1927 LR 55 IA 96 and In re Mayfair Property Co 1898 2 Ch 
28 referred to