TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (9) TMI 1205
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... petitioners filed an application, under Section 151 of CPC, to permit adduction of evidence. The application having been objected to by the first respondent and the learned I Additional District Judge having passed an order of dismissal, on 02.06.2010, these writ petitions were filed, to quash the said order and allow the application. 2. Sri B.L.Sanjeev, learned advocate, contended that there being disputed facts in the case and based onthe pleadings of the parties, issues having been raised on 09.12.2009, the Court below has committed illegality in dismissing I.A. filed on 17.03.2010. He submitted that the I.A. has been mechanically dismissed, in disregard of the ratio of law in the case of Fiza Developers and Inter-Trade Private Limited vs. AMCI (India) Private Limited andAnother, (2009) 17 SCC 796. He submitted that the impugned order being arbitrary and irrational, interference is called for. 3. Sri Swamy Shiva Prakash, learned advocate, on the other hand contended that the issues raised on 09.12.2009 are beyond the scope of the case in A.S.No.1/2008 and the petitioners have no absolute right to adduce evidence. He submitted that the petitioners are due huge amount to the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....be separated from those not so submitted, only that part of the arbitral award which contains decisions on matters not submitted to arbitration may be set aside; or (v) the composition of the arbitral tribunal or the arbitral procedure was not in accordance with the agreement of the parties, unless such agreement was in conflict with a provision of this Part from which the parties cannot derogate, or, failing such agreement, was not in accordance with this Part; or (b) the Court finds that- (i) the subject-matter of the dispute is not capable of settlement by arbitration under the law for the time being in force, or (ii) the arbitral award is in conflict with the public policy of India. Explanation.-Without prejudice to the generality of sub-clause (ii), it is hereby declared, for the avoidance of any doubt, that an award is in conflict with the public policy of India if the making of the award was induced or affected by fraud or corruption or was in violation of section 75 or section 81. (3) An application for setting aside may not be made after three months have elapsed from the date on which the party making that application had received the arbitral award ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r relief, after examining the scheme andprovisions of the Act and also the scope of proceedings under S.34 and also the effect of Rules 4 and 12 of the High Court of Karnataka Arbitration (Proceedings before the Courts) Rules, 2001, has held as follows: "17. The scheme and provisions of the Act disclose two significant aspects relating to courts vis-à-vis arbitration. The first is that there should be minimal interference by courts in matters relating to arbitration. Second is the sense of urgency shown with reference to arbitration matters brought to court, requiring promptness in disposal. 18. Section 5 of the Act provides that notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, in matters governed by Part I of the Act, no judicial authority shall intervene except where so provided in the Act. 19. Section 34 of the Act makes it clear than an arbitral award can be set aside on the grounds enumerated in sub-section (2) of Section 34 and on no other ground. Sub-section (3) of Section 34 provides that an application for setting aside may not be made after three months and the maximum delay that can be condoned is only 30 days. In other word....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ficient credible evidence to show the existence of any one of such grounds. The rest two grounds are contained in section 34(2)(b) which provides that an award may be set aside by the court on its own initiative if the subject-matter of the dispute is not arbitrable or the impugned award is in conflict with the public policy of India." The grounds for setting aside the award are specific. Therefore, necessarily a petitioner who files an application will have to plead the facts necessary to make out the ingredients of any of the grounds mentioned in sub-section (2) and prove the same. Therefore, the only question that arises in an application under Section 34 of the Act is whether the award requires to be set aside on any of the specified grounds in sub-section (2) thereof. Sub-section (2) also clearly places the burden of proof on the person who makes the application. Therefore, the question arising for adjudication as also the person on whom the burden of proof is placed is statutorily specified. Therefore, the need for issues is obviated. 23. Framing of issues is necessary only where different types of material propositions of fact or law are affirmed by one party and are d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ntioned in Section 34(2)(b). It is perhaps in this sense, the High Court has stated that the proceedings may not be adversarial. Be that as it may. 30. Having regard to the object of the Act, that is providing an expeditious alternative binding dispute resolution process with minimal court intervention, it is difficult to envisage proceedings under Section 34 of the Act as full-fledged regular civil suits under the Code of Civil Procedure. 31. Applications under Section 34 of the Act are summary proceedings with provision for objections by the respondent-defendant, followed by an opportunity to the applicant to `prove' the existence of any ground under Section 34(2). The applicant is permitted to file affidavits of his witnesses in proof. A corresponding opportunity is given to the respondent-defendant to place his evidence by affidavit. Where the case so warrants, the court permits cross-examination of the persons swearing to the affidavit.Thereafter, the court hears arguments and/or receives written submissions and decides the matter. This is of course the routine procedure. The Court may vary the said procedure, depending upon the facts of any particular case or the lo....