AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.S. Bopanna, J.—The petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 21.06.2013 passed by the VI-Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore City in A.S. No. 76/2011. The said order is passed rejecting I.A. No. 2 which was filed therein. The Court below while rejecting the application has arrived at the conclusion that the reasons put forth therein seeking for enquiry in the proceedings u/s 34 would not arise in the instant case inasmuch as they are all arguable grounds which could be considered while ultimately deciding the petition.
The learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the order would contend that the petitioner has taken the ground of bias on the part of the Arbitrator which has led to the passing of the award against the petitioner herein. Specific reference is made to the finding in the award which is at Annexure-F by contending that the conclusion reached by the Arbitrator that the petitioner herein was not able to support his claim was not justified inasmuch as the petitioner was not provided opportunity. The learned counsel would also refer to the extracts of the Minutes book which has been produced before the Arbitrator to indicate the manner in which the same has been maintained by affixing the signatures even on the blank sheets and also would contend that the communication received from the Stock Exchange which had been a document before the Arbitrator is undated and the manner in which it has been dispatched to the petitioner has not been indicated.
Therefore, while securing details from the Bombay Stock Exchange, the details of that aspect of the matter also requires to be produced to indicate the manner in which it was sent to the petitioner. Hence, it is contended that this aspect of the matter including the manner in which the Arbitrator had conducted proceedings squires enquiry. He would contend that all these aspects require evidence and therefore enquiry should have been permitted and the Court below was not justified in coming to the conclusion that the application is liable to the rejected.
It is contended that from the very order passed by the Court below, the reference made to the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court would indicate that an opportunity should be permitted and a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. No. 36533/2011 disposed of on 21.11.2011 was also of the view that if bias is allowed, appropriate opportunity is required to be granted for leading evidence and a enquiry should be conducted.
In the light of the contentions put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, a perusal of the order impugned herein passed by the Court below on I.A. No. 2 would indicate that the Court below while referring to the nature of the contention put forth by the petitioner has referred to the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India (UOI) Vs. Devendra Kumar Pant and Others, In fact, the relevant portion of the judgment has been extracted, wherein the Hon''ble Supreme Court has indicated that though the proceedings u/s 34 is a summary proceedings, the enquiry would be provided, if there is necessity to prove a ground taken u/s 34(2) of the Act. Having noticed the said judgment, the Court below was of the view that in the instant case, the facts as emerged does not require enquiry, but the contentions could be appreciated when the matter is taken up for arguments.
Though the learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the documents as has been taken note above while referring to the arguments of the learned counsel, it is to be seen that from the contentions, the emphasis is that certain documents which were available before the Arbitrator according to the learned counsel for petitioner has not been properly construed by the Arbitrator while arriving at his conclusion. Even in that background, when the finding as pointed out from the award with regard to the conclusion reached by the Arbitrator is to be taken into consideration, the entire file relating to the Arbitration could be summoned and would be available before the Court below. The discrepancies and the contradictions with regard to the availability of the evidence and the manner in which the Arbitrator has considered are all issues which could be looked into by the Court below keeping in view the scope of consideration u/s 34 of the Arbitration Act.
Therefore, in the present facts, I am of the opinion, neither the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court which was cited before the Court below nor the order of the learned single Judge cited before me would be of assistance to present facts inasmuch as the fact situation in the instant case is different. In that view of the matter, I see no reason to interfere with the order impugned in the instant petition. Accordingly, the instant petition is disposed of without any order as to costs.