Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

15. The judgment in Fiza Developers was considered by Justice B.N. Srikrishna Committee which reviewed the institutionalisation of the arbitration mechanism and pointed out that opportunity to furnish proof in proceedings under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act has led to inconsistent practices. The said Committee reported as under:-

“5. Amendment to Section 34(2)(a) of the ACA: Sub-section (2)
(a) of Section 34 of the ACA provides for the setting aside of arbitral awards by the court in certain circumstances. The party applying for setting aside the arbitral award has to furnish proof to the court. This requirement to furnish proof has led to inconsistent practices in some High Courts, where they have insisted on Section 34 proceedings being conducted in the manner as a regular civil suit. This is despite the Supreme Court ruling in Fiza Developers & Inter-Trade (P) Ltd. v. AMCI (India) (P) Ltd. (2009) 17 SCC 796 that proceedings under Section 34 should not be conducted in the same manner as civil suits, with framing of issues under Rule 1 of Order 14 of the CPC.

In light of this, the Committee is of the view that a suitable amendment may be made to Section 34(2)(a) to ensure that proceedings under Section 34 are conducted expeditiously. Recommendation: An amendment may be made to Section 34(2)

(a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, substituting the words ‘furnishes proof that’ with the words ‘establishes on the basis of the Arbitral Tribunal’s record that’.” [Report of Justice B.N. Srikrishna Committee quoted in Emkay Global Financial Services Ltd. v. Girdhar Sondhi (2018) 9 SCC 49]

16. Based upon Justice B.N. Srikrishna Committee’s report, Section 34 of the Principal Act has been amended by Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2019 as under:-

“7. Amendment of Section 34.—In Section 34 of the principal Act, in sub-section (2), in clause (a), for the words “furnishes proof that”, the words “establishes on the basis of the record of the Arbitral Tribunal that” shall be substituted.”

17. After referring to Justice B.N. Srikrishna Committee’s report and other judgments and observing that the decision in Fiza Developers must be read in the light of the amendment made in Section 34(5) and Section 34(6) of the Act and amendment to Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1996, in Emkay Global Financial Services Limited v. Girdhar Sondhi (2018) 9 SCC 49, it was held as under:-

“21. It will thus be seen that speedy resolution of arbitral disputes has been the reason for enacting the 1996 Act, and continues to be the reason for adding amendments to the said Act to strengthen the aforesaid object. Quite obviously, if issues are to be framed and oral evidence taken in a summary proceeding under Section 34, this object will be defeated. It is also on the cards that if Bill No. 100 of 2018 is passed, then evidence at the stage of a Section 34 application will be dispensed with altogether. Given the current state of the law, we are of the view that the two early Delhi High Court judgments in Sandeep Kumar v. Ashok Hans 2004 SCC OnLine Del 106, Sial Bioenergie v. SBEC Systems 2004 SCC OnLine Del 863, cited by us hereinabove, correctly reflect the position in law as to furnishing proof under Section 34(2)(a). So does the Calcutta High Court judgment in WEB Techniques and Net Solutions (P) Ltd. v. Gati Ltd. 2012 SCC OnLine Cal 4271. We may hasten to add that if the procedure followed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court judgment in Punjab SIDC Ltd. v. Sunil K. Kansal 2012 SCC Online P&H 19641 is to be adhered to, the time-limit of one year would only be observed in most cases in the breach. We therefore overrule the said decision. We are constrained to observe that Fiza Developers was a step in the right direction as its ultimate ratio is that issues need not be struck at the stage of hearing a Section 34 application, which is a summary procedure.