Additional Evidence Can Only Be Allowed In Exceptional Circumstances While Deciding Plea U/S 34 Of Arbitration Act: Chhattisgarh HC

Brief Facts:

The petitioner challenges an order passed by the commercial court by which an application under section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act was allowed.

The petitioner submitted that respondent had filed an application under section 34 of the Arbitration Act challenging an award passed on April 16, 2020. During the proceedings, the respondent no. 1 sought to prove a letter dated April 15 April, 2015 by an application under section 65 of the Evidence Act. Based on this, it was argued that challenge under section 34 of the Arbitration Act must rely solely on the arbitral record and additional documents should be allowed only in exceptional circumstances. Reliance was placed on the Alpine Housing Development Corporation Pvt. Ltd. v. Ashok S. Dhariwal, 2023.

Per contra, the respondent submitted that the document was filed as per section 65 of the Evidence Act which needs to be proved as per the procedure laid down under this section. The court allowed the documents to be submitted while applying the law in Alpine Housing Development Corporation Pvt. Ltd.(supra) therefore the present petition deserves to be dismissed.

Observations:

The court noted that in Alpine Housing Development Corporation Pvt. Ltd.(supra) the Supreme Court held that ordinarily additional documents which are not part of the arbitration record cannot be permitted to be given by the court hearing the application under section 34 of the Arbitration Act. The proceedings under section 34 are summary proceedings and if additional evidence are permitted, the purpose of speedily disposing of the petition would be defeated.

It was held that “an application for setting aside the arbitral award will not ordinarily require anything beyond the record that was before the arbitrator, however, if there are matters not containing such records and the relevant determination to the issues arising under section 34(2)(a), they may be brought to the notice of the Court by way of affidavits filed by both the parties' the cross-examination of the persons swearing in to the affidavits should not be allowed unless absolutely necessary as the truth will emerge on the reading of the affidavits filed by both the parties.”

While relying on the observations, the court observed that no affidavit demonstrating the exceptional circumstances was filed along with the application under section 65 of the Evidence Act therefore in such circumstances the application under section 65 was not maintainable.

Accordingly, the impugned order was set aside.

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

Case Number: WP227 No. 8 of 2025

Judgment Date: 15/01/2025

For Petitioner : Mr. Abhinav Kardekar, Advocate

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

Click Here To Read/Download The Order