Karnataka High Court
Shankar S/O Muraleedharan P vs A T & S Pvt. Ltd on 21 November, 2011
Author: B.S.Patil
Bench: B.S.Patil
WP. S6533/2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE - DATED THIS THE 21°? DAY OF NOVEMBER, 20 lt - SO BEFORE Cowedded vide THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.S:RATIL faded oat W.P.No. 36589/2011 (iH. Res) ( (6 "- Res) Adds. eaves SRY SHANKAR Hea ble °°" S/O MURALEEDHARAN P REP. BY GPA HOLDER MR. MURALEEDUHARAN P S/O LATE KLS.NATR © AGED 64 YERAS, . as BOTH R/AT NO.100. S' CROSS S, 1St MAIN, . JAVADISH! Ne RGA BANG ALOBE TOR ok, Coe, PETE ETON EIR (BY SRI MANA MOHAN. P. N. 5 ADV AND L ABR & SPVPLTD > NOO12A, INDUSTRIAL AREA a NAIJANG UD, MYSORE DISTRICT, RE P.BY ITS HEAD-HUMAN RESOURCES MES, Mi ARUL ASIDDA | MLC. 1D SOLE ARTIARATOR R ASSOCIATION i AS COURTS PREMISES ee E TAMARAJAPURAM, MYSORE. .. RESPONDENTS - BY GRID. RLRAVISHANKAR, ADV. FOR! M/S LAX NEALTS, FOR Re] THIS WRIP PETITION IS PILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE WP 3653S /2011 ORDER DT. 16.8.11 PASSED ON IA FILED U/S 34 OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT READ WITH SEC,15 i OF CPC PASSED IN ARBITRATION SUIT NO.1/10 PASSED BY THE ° COURT OF PRL.DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE AT MYSORE VIDE. ANNX-E AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW APPLICATION An Ere: . THIS PETITION COMING IN FOR PRELIMINARY HEA RING. THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FO: -LOWING: ORDER
il. Tn this writ petition. petitioner is calling.in question the order dated 16.0 3.26 out passed by the léarried District Judge. Mysore, thereby "dhemissing the- application filed seeking permission to adazuce evidence in Arbitration Suit No.1 /2010.
2. Arbitration Suit No. l/ 2010 is instituted under Section 54 of tne . Arbitration ee. Con cfliation Act, 1996 Wor short, 'the Act) 'seeking to set aside the arbitral award dated 22.01.2010 passed by the. Ag 'bite ator in Arbitration Case No. 1/2008, oe, Petition er intended to lead evidence to prove that the
- aay d passe d by the Arbitrator was biased and was liable to be _ set aside. This was objected to by the respondent herein. The 'Ceurt below has dismissed ihe application holding that the request made by the petitioner was to lead evidence with regard soe \ e senvoatany WP .56533/2011 to the conduct of the Arbitrator in refusing to hold 'the arbitration proceedings by changing the venue, therefore, the . same cannot be accepted as the pleadings in ihe Arbitration. alt fled under Section 34 of the Act did .not disclose any - if foundation for the allegation of bias.
4, Learned counsel appearing for-the. petitioner invites the attention of the Court to the vrounds uiged ta Arbitration Suit No.1 /2010 whereunder he has contended ihat the Arbitrator 'drifted away fron' the roie of arbitra (or, pi aétically functioning as a party involving himself in the dispute by and between the parties'. it is this aspect af the matter, counse! submits, that the petitioner intended te place oi record by adducing evidence consistent with what. has: been pleaded, therefore, the Court « below w 18 snot right and justified in rejecting the application filed Yo lead. evidence. In support ol this contention, he has placed reliance on 'the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of "IRA. DEVELOPERS & INTER-TRADE P. LTD. Ve AMCI 7) PVT. CPD. &
- ANOTHER ~ 2609 (12) JT S19.
on Learned counsel tor the respondent submits that no case «was made out before the Court below for leading evidence and a having regard to the nature of the proceecings eh i WP S6533/2011 Seciion 54 of the Act and in the absence of any foundation laid in the pleadings to lead evidence regarding bias against ihe. Arbitrator. the Court below was right and justified.in' passing. the impugned order.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the partiée and on careful perusal of the pleadings and the impusiied order. I find that the petitioner has indeed taken. up" a "contention in the proceedings instituted under. Section 34 of ihe Act contending that the Arbitrator had ip fact undertaken the role of an adversary by invelving himself. ine the ; dispute between the parties. This 4s a serious allegation made against the Arbitrator. oar the 'party wants "to substantiate the same by leading evidence. the same éannot be denied. In fact, In the ; "judgment relerred to supra by the learned counsel for the petitioner, w is stated that though the proceedings under Section 34 are not in the nature of adversarial proceedings, the : applicant Y iio has appreached the Court invoking Section 34 of " the Act "had to prove one of the grounds set out in Section "S4poy a) and (b) and even if the applicant does mot rely upon the _ grounds under clause (ob), the Court, om its own initiative, may examine the award to find out whether it is Hable to be set aside WP.36533 /201 1 fr on either of the two grounds mentioned in Section 34(2) Mb _ i is further stated in paragraph-14 that in such proce codinys, "Ene 7 applicant is permitted to file affidavit of his witnesses in proot of his case and a correspondent opportunit iy is to.be's given. to the :
defendant/respondenit to place his evidence by affichavit. :
7. in the instant case, having regard to the grounds urged in the Arbitration Suit filed under Section 84.0 the Act regarding the role of the Arbitrator, if the: petitioner is 'nol provided with an opportunity, "then : he will : be seprived of a flair and reasonable opportunity to establish his case. It cannot be said that such: all leg sation does not sal sathin the ambit of Section 34 (2) of the Act. " therelote,, the C Court below was not right and fustified in rejecting the application on the ground that no ' foundation-was-laid in the pleadings to allow the application. & -. Hence: the impugned order is set aside. The application ied by the. pelitioner is alowed. Petitioner is permitted to lead evidence in support of the plea that he has taken in respect of the. Arbitrator in the application. Apprehension of the Inpeadi Ag _ respondent that the petitioner is ended to drag on the 'proceedings can be addressed by directing the Court below to digsuese of the proceedings as expedilicusly as possible al any wade ia Seennencattiat WP, 36553 /201 1 rate within a period of six months from the date of receipt ef a copy of this order. Writ Petition is accordingly allowed... PRS