M/S Mohan Lal Gupta vs The General Manager Of Ordnance Factory on 31 May, 2022
44. From the aforesaid materials, and upon an interpretation
of Section 24 consistent with the requirements of natural justice, I
am of the view that the first proviso to Section 24(1) requires a
party's request for oral hearings at the stage of evidence or
arguments to be granted. Unless the right to require oral evidence
or oral arguments has been waived by a prior agreement to the
contrary between the parties, the proviso to Section 24(1) expresses
a legislative preference for the grant of oral hearing at the request
of either party. The judgment in V. Tulasamma (supra) [V.
OMP (Comm.) No. 133/2021 M/s Mohan Lal Gupta vs The General Manager of Ordnance Factory Page 28 of 35
Tulasamma & Ors. vs. Sasha Reddy, (1977) 3 SCC 99], cited by
Mr. Srivastava, holds that a proviso carves out an exception to the
main provision, but cannot destroy the effect of the main provision
itself. In my view, this interpretation of the proviso to Section 24
does not fall foul of this principle - the proviso provides for an
exception to the general provision, that the arbitrator has discretion
on the question of whether or not to permit oral hearings.