Gujarat High Court Cautions Trial Judges To Avoid Drafting Mistakes In Judgments, After Finding Copy-Paste Errors In Arbitration Order
The Gujarat High Court has cautioned Commercial and Trial Court judges across the State after finding drafting errors in a Section 34 order under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, directing that its observations be circulated to all district courts to prevent recurrence of such mistakes.Emphasising the need for judicial diligence, the Division Bench of Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and...
The Gujarat High Court has cautioned Commercial and Trial Court judges across the State after finding drafting errors in a Section 34 order under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, directing that its observations be circulated to all district courts to prevent recurrence of such mistakes.
Emphasising the need for judicial diligence, the Division Bench of Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice D.N. Ray observed:
“Having carefully gone through the judgment of the Court under Section 34 of the Act, 1996, though, we find that there are errors in noting some factual aspects here and there and it seems that the learned Judge has copied certain paragraphs from another of his own judgments rendered on similar point of controversy, but the said errors do not form part of the crucial reasonings of the Court in refusing to set aside the arbitral award. The errors pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant are clerical/typographical in nature, which could have been corrected had an application been filed by the applicant, without changing the structure of the judgment, i.e. the reasonsing and the conclusion...
We would like to add a word of caution for the Judges of the Commercial / Trial Court to be careful in writing their judgments specifically while deciding more than one cases of the similar nature. The learned Judges are required to read the draft judgments carefully, and edit them so as to avoid occurrence of any such mistake.”
The observations came while the High Court was deciding appeals filed by Madhya Gujarat Vij Company Limited under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act challenging a Commercial Court order which had refused to set aside an arbitral award passed in favour of M/s Usha Prestressed Concrete and its sister concern.
The dispute arose from contracts for supply of PSC poles. The arbitral tribunal had awarded damages to the supplier after finding that the electricity company failed to lift the contracted quantity, resulting in financial losses due to under-utilised infrastructure and loss of profit. The Commercial Court upheld the award, which was challenged before the High Court.
While affirming the Commercial Court's refusal to interfere with the arbitral award, the High Court noted serious errors in the Commercial Court's judgment. The Bench found that portions of the judgment contained references to unrelated facts, incorrect party names, and findings apparently copied from other matters, indicating lack of proper proofreading and judicial application of mind to the final draft.
The High Court observed that such mistakes, though possibly inadvertent, could undermine the credibility and "creditworthiness" of judicial decisions. It emphasised that when dealing with multiple similar matters, judges must ensure that each judgment reflects accurate facts and independent reasoning.
“We are aware that many a time Judges have to work under strict timelines and with limited resources which make the job more compelling than it should be, even under normal circumstances. At the same time, diligence is not something which can be lightly sacrificed at the altar of expedition or even expediency. This is because, we are equally aware that an entire institution can be questioned for creditworthiness due to careless lapses which find their way into the delivery of the order/judgment and the fact that public confidence tends to be shaken by such carelessness/lack of diligence,” the Court added.
The Court clarified that despite these drafting errors, the ultimate conclusion of the Commercial Court in upholding the arbitral award did not warrant interference, as the arbitral tribunal's findings were based on evidence and did not suffer from patent illegality.
However, expressing concern over the quality of drafting, the Bench issued a formal caution and directed State-wide circulation of its observations to sensitise the district judiciary.
Accordingly, while dismissing the appeals and upholding the arbitral award, the High Court directed its registrar general to circulate its observations to all the trial courts in the State.
Case Title: Madhya Gujarati Vij Company Ltd. v M/s Usha Prestressed Concrete
Appearance: Mr. Maulik G. Nanavati for the Appellants and Mr. Prashanth S. Undurti for the Defendants.
Case number: R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3732 of 2023 with R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3804 of 2023