Additional evidence may be admitted only in exceptional circumstances while deciding a plea U/S 34 of the Arbitration Act: Chhattisgarh HC

Quick facts:

The petitioner challenges the judgment issued by the Commercial Court granting an application under Art. 65 of the Indian Evidence Act.

The petitioner argued that the respondent filed an application pursuant to Art. 34 of the Arbitration Act, appealing against the award issued on April 16, 2020. In the course of proceedings, defendant no. 2007/2020. 1 I requested proof of the letter of April 15, 2015 with an application pursuant to Art. 65 of the Evidence Act. On this basis, it was argued that the appeal under Art. 34 of the Arbitration Act must be based solely on the arbitration acts and additional documents should only be admissible in exceptional circumstances. Reliance was placed on Alpine Housing Development Corporation Pvt. Ltd. v. Ashok S. Dhariwal, 2023.

On the contrary, the defendant stated that the document was submitted in accordance with Art. 65 of the Evidence Act, which must be proven in accordance with the procedure provided for in this section. The court allowed the documents to be submitted as part of the application of the law Alpine Housing Development Corporation Pvt. Ltd. (above) therefore, this petition deserves to be dismissed.

Observations:

The court noted that in Alpine Housing Development Corporation Pvt. Ltd. (above) The Supreme Court ruled that, as a rule, the court considering an application pursuant to Art. 34 of the Arbitration Act cannot allow the issuance of additional documents that are not part of the arbitration protocol. The procedure referred to in Art. 34, is a summary procedure and if additional evidence is admitted, the purpose of speedy disposal of the petition will be defeated.

It was held that “an application to set aside an arbitration award will not normally require anything beyond the record that was before the arbitrator, however, if there are cases that do not contain such records and an appropriate determination of the issues arising under Art. 34 section 2 letter a) may be brought to the notice of the Court by way of declarations submitted by both parties. Examination of persons taking an oath under oath should not be allowed unless it is absolutely necessary, as the truth will come to light after reading the affidavits given by both parties.”

Based on the observations, the court noted that along with the application under Art. 65 of the Evidence Act, no affidavit was submitted demonstrating the existence of exceptional circumstances, therefore in such circumstances an application under s. 65 did not deserve to be included.

Therefore, the contested order was repealed.

Case Title: M/s Hira Carbonics Private Limited v. Kunwar Virendra Singh Patel and Anr.

Case number: WP227 No. 8 of 2025

Judgment date: 15/01/2025

On behalf of the petitioner: Advocate Abhinav Kardekar

For respondent No. 1: Mr. Rakesh Kumar Thakur, Advocate

Click here to read/download the order