Arbitral misconduct must be proved from the record; oral evidence in court is not permitted to challenge the award.

In a challenge to an arbitral award under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, a plea of legal misconduct by the arbitrator must be established from the arbitral record and the evidence already before the arbitrator. The court cannot reappreciate the evidence or permit oral evidence in court to prove such misconduct, because the challenge is confined to the statutory grounds for setting aside the award. Oral evidence to substantiate legal misconduct was therefore impermissible, and the liberty to examine a witness was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether, in proceedings challenging an arbitral award under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, oral evidence can be permitted in court to establish legal misconduct by the arbitrator.

Analysis: The challenge under Sections 30 and 33 is confined to the statutory grounds for setting aside an award. Legal misconduct is not equivalent to moral misconduct and must be demonstrable from the arbitral record and the evidence already adduced before the arbitrator. The court cannot reappreciate the evidence or permit oral evidence in court to substantiate a plea that the arbitrator committed legal misconduct. The arbitral proceedings themselves are the proper material for testing such a challenge.

Conclusion: Oral evidence in court is impermissible for proving legal misconduct in a challenge under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. The liberty granted to examine a witness was set aside, and the respondent was left to rely on the arbitral record.

Ratio Decidendi: A plea of legal misconduct in a challenge to an arbitral award must be established from the arbitral record itself and cannot be proved by adducing oral evidence in court.

---