Summary
Award challengers sought to adduce further evidence in section 34 proceedings without identifying its nature or necessity. The Court held that these summary proceedings ordinarily depend on the arbitral record; additional affidavits and cross-examination require a demonstrated exceptional need. Both sides had already led extensive evidence before the arbitrator. The High Court’s direction permitting a fresh evidentiary process was set aside and the District Judge’s refusal restored.
Issues
- Whether further evidence and cross-examination were justified in the section 34 challenge.
- Whether the High Court properly exercised supervisory jurisdiction over the District Judge’s procedural order.
Held
- Section 34 proceedings are summary and confined to statutory grounds. Framing ordinary civil-suit issues is unnecessary, and procedural rules do not automatically import the entire Civil Procedure Code into the challenge. (¶¶ 9, 10, 11, 12)
- Following Emkay Global, the arbitral record ordinarily suffices. Relevant matters outside it may exceptionally be presented through affidavits; cross-examination should occur only when absolutely necessary. Fiza Developers must be read consistently with the statutory objective of speedy disposal and the later amendments. (¶¶ 14, 15, 16, 17)
- The applicants identified neither particular evidence nor its necessity or relevance. Having already examined witnesses and produced documents in arbitration, they established no exceptional need. The High Court’s directions effectively permitted retrial and improperly interfered with a non-perverse procedural order. (¶¶ 18, 19)
Result
The appeals were allowed without costs. The High Court judgment was set aside and the District Judge’s rejection of the application to adduce evidence affirmed. The District Judge was directed to decide the pending section 34 proceeding expeditiously in accordance with law.