Sangeeta Aggarwal vs Virender Singh Rohtagi
1997 Latest Caselaw 1003 Del

JUDGMENT

K.S. Gupta, J.

1. Respondents have filed this application under Order 14, Rule 5 read with Section 151 C.P.C. alleging that on receipt of notice of the filing of the award by the arbitrator in court, they filed objections under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act which are being contested by the Petitioner. Objections filed by the Respondents are mainly under the following heads :

(a) Biased approach of the arbitrator towards the respondents objectors.

(b) Non-consideration of the counter claim filed on behalf of the respondents.

(c) Rejection of the request of the respondents for summoning witnesses.

(d) Passing of award in respect of the property owned and possessed by a third party who was neither imp leaded as a party in these proceedings nor has any connection with the claimants.

(e) Non-consideration of the law and citation given by the respondent/objectors to the arbitrator.

(f) Arbitrator deciding the division of the property No. 1812/7, Indu Bazar, Bhagirath Place, Delhi and in respect of property No. 1767/G-23, Bhagirath Place, Delhi, and

(g) Giving observations regarding the books of accounts.

2. Said objections cannot be disposed of without formally framing the issues and permitting the parties to adduce evidence. It was prayed that the issues may be framed and the matter be thereafter posted for evidence.

3. In the reply, petitioner has inter alia, alleged that the objections filed by the respondents can be decided on the basis of the record of the arbitrator proceedings and those do not call for framing of issues or leading evidence by the parties as alleged. Application has been filed for further delaying the case by the respondents.

4. Relying on the decision in Loyal Textile Mills Ltd. v. Allenberg Cotton Company (1993(2) Arb. LR 6), Oil & Natural Gas Commission v. Offshore Enterprises Ins. (1995(1) Arb. LR 432), and the provisions contained in Section 33 of the Arbitration Act, submission advanced by Sh. Ashok Kumar appearing for the respondents/objectors was that the Court is bound to decide the objections in question after affording opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence and, therefore, issues be framed and thereafter case posted for evidence. In Union of India v. Sohan Singh Sethi & Sons (1996 (32) DRJ 99 = 1996(1) Arb. LR 504), identical argument was addressed on behalf of the petitioner before a learned Single Judge of the Court. After referring to the provisions contained in Sections 15, 16 and 30 of the Arbitration Act in paras No. 6, 7 and 8 of the report, it was held thus :

"A bare perusal of the several grounds on which an award may be liable to be tampered with by the court discloses that in so far as the grounds contemplated by Sections 15 and 16 are concerned, objections to the validity or correctness of an award are capable of being substantiated merely by a look at the award and if necessary, at the record of the arbitration proceedings. So is the case with some of the grounds contemplated by Section 30 of the Act. It is only under Section 30 when the objections raised are not capable of being substantiated by reference to the award or the arbitration proceedings then the court may think of the necessity of framing issues and recording evidence by affidavits or by calling the witnesses and if necessary by directions discovery and particulars as it may do in a suit.

It cannot be lost sight of that the proceedings are summary is nature and though the petition is registered as a suit and the provisions of Civil Procedure Code are applicable, yet the objections are not required to be adjudicated upon through the procedure of a long-drawn trial.

Presumption attaches to the correctness of the proceedings and record made by and arbitrator unless there is a specific challenge laid to it. In all such cases where the truthfulness or correctness of the record of the proceedings made by the arbitrator is not under challenge, it is not necessary to record any evidence. The objections preferred by either party if capable of being substantiated by reference to record of the proceedings made by an arbitrator and/or the award made by him, the court may straightaway proceed to hear the objections dispensing with the necessity of recording any evidence even by way of affidavits.

5. I agree with the above view taken by the learned Single Judge in Sohan Singh Sethi's case (supra). After having gone through the award dated 24-12-1994 and the nature of the objections as summarised in para No. 3 of the application, I am of the view that the objections in question can be disposed of by having a look at the award and the record of the arbitration proceedings alone. Decisions in Loyal Textile Mills Ltd. and Oil and Natural Gas Commission's case (supra) were rendered on the peculiar facts of those cases, are of no help to the respondents.

6. Applications is, therefore, dismissed.

List on ................... for arguments.

7. Application dismissed.