2014 (6) TMI 155 - HC - Indian Laws

Court upholds withdrawal of order allowing petitioner to lead evidence after framing issues under Section 34

Shiv Shanker Rice Mills Versus Punjab State Co-operative Supply & Marketing Federations Limited, Markfield and another

The Court upheld the withdrawal of the order allowing the petitioner to lead evidence after framing issues under Section 34 of the Arbitration and ... Withdrawal of order framing the issues - proceedings under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Opportunity for leading evidence - respondent contended that, contended that whatever evidence is required to be led, this should have been led before the Arbitrator and it cannot be allowed to be brought before learned District Judge. - Held that:- Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 are not civil proceeding like in a civil suit, rather the same are summary proceedings. In such proceedings, neither issues are required to be framed, nor it is permissible that such proceedings should follow the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure in respect of leading evidence. The Court can only frame the legal points for determination and may afford opportunity to lead evidence by way of affidavits to both the parties. There is no provision for wholesale or automatic import of all the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. - Decided against appellant. Issues:1. Setting aside the order recalling the permission to lead evidence after framing of issues under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.Analysis:The revision petition was filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to challenge the withdrawal of an order allowing the petitioner to lead evidence after framing issues by the trial Court under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The petitioner contended that the withdrawal of the order was illegal and without jurisdiction. The respondent argued that the evidence should have been presented before the arbitrator and not the District Judge. The respondent referred to a judgment to support the legality of the withdrawal of the order. The Court noted that proceedings under Section 34 of the Act are summary in nature and not akin to civil suits. The Court can frame legal points for determination and allow evidence through affidavits, without following all provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure.The Court cited a Division Bench judgment to emphasize that issues need not be mandatorily framed as in a regular suit, and the Court is not bound to grant opportunities for evidence like in a civil suit. The proceedings under Section 34 are summary and may involve cross-examination of witnesses if desired. The Court clarified that while the application under Section 34 is adversarial in nature, it differs significantly from regular civil suits. The Court highlighted that the applicant must prove one of the grounds under Section 34(2) even if there is no contest. The Court emphasized that proceedings under Section 34 are summary with minimal court intervention, aiming for expeditious dispute resolution.The Court rejected the petitioner's argument that the withdrawal of the order was illegal, citing the settled principle that Section 34 proceedings are summary and distinct from civil suits. The Court noted that the judgment cited by the petitioner was not considered by the Division Bench and therefore did not apply to the case. Consequently, the Court found no illegality in the impugned order dated 11.08.2004 and dismissed the petition.In conclusion, the Court upheld the withdrawal of the order allowing the petitioner to lead evidence after framing issues under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Court emphasized the summary nature of Section 34 proceedings, highlighting that they do not require the framing of issues like in civil suits and do not follow all provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. The judgment provided clarity on the distinct nature of Section 34 proceedings and the minimal court intervention aimed at expeditious dispute resolution.