Summary
The Supreme Court set aside a High Court order under Article 227 that had directed an Arbitral Tribunal to allow the claimant a further opportunity to cross-examine the respondent's witness. The Tribunal had already given full opportunity, the High Court found no perversity in its refusal, and the statutory policy of judicial restraint in arbitral matters required the High Court to keep out.
Issues
- Whether the High Court correctly exercised its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution in directing the Arbitral Tribunal to grant the claimant one more opportunity to cross-examine the respondent's witness, after the Tribunal had refused that request.
- Whether the Tribunal's refusal of further cross-examination denied the claimant a full opportunity to present its case.
Provisions considered
- Article 227 (read with Article 226), Constitution of IndiaThe Court held that interference with an Arbitral Tribunal's procedural order under Articles 226/227 is permissible only where the order is patently perverse; the High Court recorded no perversity and should have restrained itself. (¶¶ 2, 14, 15, 16, 17)
- Section 18, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996Read as the first principle of conduct of arbitral proceedings: the Tribunal must treat parties equally and give each a full opportunity to present its case. On the record the Tribunal had given full opportunity, the cross-examination of the witness having exceeded 12 hours. (¶¶ 12, 13)
- Section 5, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996The Court described the statutory incorporation of judicial restraint in matters governed by Part I, including the conduct of arbitral proceedings, as overriding and operating notwithstanding any other law; this weighed against the High Court's interference. (¶¶ 12, 14)
Held
- Two statutory obligations operate together: the Arbitral Tribunal's duty under Section 18 to treat parties equally and give each a full opportunity to present its case, and the overriding obligation on judicial authorities to exercise restraint in interfering with matters governed by Part I of the Act, including the conduct of arbitral proceedings. (¶ 12)
- Where the Arbitral Tribunal has decided that a party has had sufficient opportunity to cross-examine a witness and closes further cross-examination, the High Court should not interfere under Article 227 unless the order is perverse in the sense that the perversity is evident on its face. (¶¶ 14, 15)
- The High Court's observation that cross-examination is a valuable means of discovering the truth is a general normative statement and does not justify interference; the only relevant enquiry was whether there had been a denial of an opportunity for effective cross-examination, and there was none. (¶ 16)
- On the record, the Tribunal had given full opportunity: the claimant's cross-examination of the witness had already run over several sittings and exceeded 12 hours, and the request for still more time was excessive, particularly in time-bound proceedings whose extended mandate was about to expire. (¶¶ 10, 13, 16, 17)
Result
Appeals allowed; the High Court's order of 25.10.2024 set aside and the Tribunal's refusal of further cross-examination restored; the Arbitral Tribunal directed to resume and conclude the proceedings as expeditiously as possible.