Delhi High Court
Dhananjay Singh Rathore & Anr. vs M/S Parviom Technologies Pvt Ltd & ... on 19 May, 2023
Neutral Citation Number 2023:DHC:3591
$~55
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 19.05.2023
+ CM(M) 845/2023 & CM APPLs. 26366-67/2023
DHANANJAY SINGH RATHORE & ANR. ..... Petitioners
versus
M/S PARVIOM TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD & ANR...... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr. Dhruv Gupta, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Rupal Luthra and Mr. Tuhin Batra,
Advocates for R-1&2
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA
JUDGMENT
TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J. (ORAL)
[ The proceeding has been conducted through Hybrid mode ]
1. The petitioners challenge the order dated 15.04.2023 passed by
the learned sole arbitrator in the matter titled as 'Dhananjay Singh
Rathore & Anr. Vs. /s Parviom Technologies Pvt Ltd & Anr.' whereby
the learned Arbitrator had closed the right of the petitioner/claimant to
lead evidence by taking off the record the affidavit of the witnesses
namely CW1 and CW2.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signing Date:24.05.2023
11:50:50
Neutral Citation Number 2023:DHC:3591
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/claimant submits that
for the reasons which are stated in the impugned order, the same cannot
entail that the drastic measures to the extent of striking of the affidavit
of CW1 and CW2 off the record leaving the petitioner/plaintiff to lead
evidence to prove his case.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the
impugned order is absolutely perverse, illegal and contrary to the
provisions known of law.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that even
though the proceedings are conducted under the provisions of
Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1966, the basic principles of natural
justice inasmuch as the examination and cross examination of the
witnesses to prove their own cases, cannot be struck off without any
valid reason.
5. Mr. Luthra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits
that the impugned order is sustainable for the reason that there was
unnecessary interference and irrelevant objections and irrelevant reasons
raised by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner /claimant
before the learned Arbitrator.
6. Learned counsel submits that the interference was to such an
extent that for every question there was an objection being raised
unnecessarily.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signing Date:24.05.2023
11:50:50
Neutral Citation Number 2023:DHC:3591
7. On that basis, learned counsel submits that the impugned order is
sustainable is law and ought not to be interfered by this Court under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
8. After hearing both the parties, this Court is of the considered
opinion that for the reasons which are stated in the impugned order, the
consequence thereto is unsustainable. The reason of the counsel for
claimant interfering or objecting to the cross-examination by learned
respondent cannot entail striking of the directions in the complete
evidence of both CW1 and CW2 for the reason contained in the
impugned order are too drastic and completely extinguishes the case of
the petitioner /claimant. This cannot be countenanced and is
impermissible in law.
9. The interference or objections which are being raised by the
learned counsel appearing for the petitioner / claimant may or may not
be sustainable in law, however, can be recorded and in case of
interference beyond the procedure or legal aspects, the Arbitrator would
be at liberty to control and curtail the same in accordance with law.
However, passing such orders, where the evidence of a party is
completely rejected, was as such not correct procedure to follow in law.
10. Having said that, this Court is conscious of the fact that the
learned counsel for the petitioner /claimant has a right to raise objections
as to the relevancy of the question being put across by learned counsel
appearing for the respondent and not to interfere unnecessarily with the
cross examination.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signing Date:24.05.2023
11:50:50
Neutral Citation Number 2023:DHC:3591
11. It is also made clear that the learned arbitrator shall also limit the
para phrasing, editing or improving only to the extent where it is of a
compelling nature and not otherwise.
12. This is categorically and vehemently disputed by learned counsel
appearing for the respondent, who submits it was only legitimate
objections to the comments, phrasing, editing and improvement on the
questions being asked by the learned counsel, which were improved
upon by the sole Arbitrator, that was objectionable.
13. In view of above, the impugned order is set aside.
14. It has been informed that the learned sole Arbitrator has
adjourned the matter to 05.07.2023 and 06.07.2023.
15. The learned Arbitrator is directed to take on record the evidence
of CW1 and CW2 on record and commence the recording of the
evidence of the petitioner in accordance with law from the stage it was
last left at.
16. The petition is disposed of with no order as to costs.
TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J.
MAY 19, 2023/ms
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signing Date:24.05.2023
11:50:50
