Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

7 Insofar as the proof of the document itself is concerned, learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that a very important or material fact, namely, existence of another document on record (a copy) which had signatures of all parties save and except Petitioner No.4 herein, which the arbitrator was obliged to consider, was not taken into account by the arbitrator whilst arriving at his finding on genuineness of the document. There is nothing to suggest that this particular argument was advanced before the learned arbitrator. Be that as it may, this is really a matter of assessment of evidence. So far as the proof of the document is concerned, it is for us merely to see whether the arbitrator's finding in respect of the document is supported by some evidence. If it is so supported, and there are quite a few matters which, in fact, support such finding, and if there is no material document or circumstance disregarded, or no irrelevant or non-germane document or circumstance considered by the arbitrator, there is nothing further to inquire into. Sufficiency of evidence is most certainly a matter for the arbitrator to decide. It cannot be said that the document, which did not bear the signature of Petitioner No.4 herein, was such a material document that disregarding the same, assuming that this matter was in fact argued before the learned arbitrator, could be said to have caused failure of justice. In other words, it cannot be said that had the arbitrator considered the document, namely, the unsigned document, the arbitrator would have come to a different conclusion. The Respondent's case before the arbitrator was that initially the agreement sat 8/9 arbp 1034-2013.doc was signed by everyone except Petitioner No.4, who signed the document subsequently. In other words, copies of the document, one signed by Petitioner No.4 and others, and the other signed only by others and not Petitioner No.4, could, on the basis of the Respondents' case, very well co- exist. If it was the Petitioners' case that they could not so co-exist, it was indeed for them to cross-examine the Respondents' witness or to produce their own evidence, which, as I have noted above, they have singularly failed to do. In that case, based on the available material before him, if the arbitrator were to come to the conclusion that the document was indeed signed by all parties including, as we have noted above, admittedly, by Petitioner Nos.1 to 3 herein, and the execution of the document was thus proved, it cannot be termed as a perverse finding, that is to say, an impossible finding or a finding, which no fair or judiciously minded person could have arrived at or as would shock the conscience of the court.