M. SHASHI KALA Vs. CANARA NIDHI LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Dispute between the petitioners and the first respondent was referred to arbitration by the 2nd respondent. The Arbitrator made an award dated 15.12.2007 and directed the petitioners to pay Rs. 63,82,802/- and interest on Rs. 50,00,000/- at 14% from 11.08.2000 and cost of Rs. 52,959/-. To set aside the said award, the petitioners filed A.S.No.1/2008, under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ('Act' for short), in the Court of District Judge at Mangalore. The first respondent having filed written statement, resisting the case, issues have been raised on 09.12.2009. The petitioners filed an application, under Section 151 of CPC, to permit adduction of evidence. The application having been objected to by the first respondent and the learned I Additional District Judge having passed an order of dismissal, on 02.06.2010, these writ petitions were filed, to quash the said order and allow the application.

(2.) Sri B.L.Sanjeev, learned advocate, contended that there being disputed facts in the case and based on the pleadings of the parties, issues having been raised on 09.12.2009, the Court below has committed illegality in dismissing I.A. filed on 17.03.2010. He submitted that the I.A. has been mechanically dismissed, in disregard of the ratio of law in the case of Fiza Developers and Inter-Trade Private Limited vs. AMCI (India) Private Limited and Another, 2009 17 SCC 796. He submitted that the impugned order being arbitrary and irrational, interference is called for.

(3.) Sri Swamy Shiva Prakash, learned advocate, on the other hand contended that the issues raised on 09.12.2009 are beyond the scope of the case in A.S.No.1/2008 and the petitioners have no absolute right to adduce evidence. He submitted that the petitioners are due huge amount to the first respondent and despite passing of the award on 15.12.2007 by the Arbitrator, every effort is being made to delay the payment. He submitted that having regard to the object of the Act, which is to provide expeditious alternative binding dispute resolution process with the minimal court intervention, the proceeding under Section 34 of the Act being a summary proceeding and not full-fledged trial in the manner of civil suit under the Code of Civil Procedure, the District Judge is justified in dismissing the I.A. Learned counsel made submissions in support of the impugned order.