OMPRAKASH VAISHYA Vs. SHRI RAM DEVLOPERS AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has filed this writ petition assailing the order dated 22.3.2017 passed by the 7th ADJ, Gwalior, whereby an application moved by the petitioner for adducing evidence has been rejected.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the application, which was filed by him, is available on record as Annexure P/4. In the application, it has been clearly mentioned that such application was filed before the Arbitrator, but learned Arbitrator had malafidely dismissed such application, and therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner had filed an application before the learned Court of 7th ADJ before whom an application under Sec. 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is pending for setting aside the award dated 17th Nov., 201 In the said application, it is mentioned that learned Arbitrator did not deem it fit to go through the documents which were sought to be taken on record and without reading them declined to take them on record. It is also submitted that to prove all those documents, applicant i.e. petitioner before this Court, would like to summon Tahsildar Gwalior, Branch Manager, Punjab and Sindh Bank, Jayendra Ganj, Gwalior and Secretary, GYMC Club, Sanatan Dharm Mandir Road, Gwalior, and since these witnesses are beyond his authority, therefore, they be summoned through process of the Court.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of State of M.P. & Ors. Vs. M/s. Som Datt Builder Pvt. Ltd. as reported in I.L.R. (2014) MP 726 and placing reliance on this judgment, it is submitted that though the High Court declined to interfere in the matter of complaint regarding non-framing of issues by the authority before whom the arbitration award was under challenge, but deprecated the order of not giving an opportunity to the party to lead evidence. It has been held in the case of M/s. Som Datt Builder that in summary proceedings under Arbitration Act issues are not required to be framed. However, the matter was remanded back to decide the application for permission to lead evidence. Petitioner has also placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Cochin Shivyard Ltd. Vs. M/s. Apeejay Shipping Ltd. dated 6th Nov., 2015 passed in civil appeal No.9187/2015. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court to para 19 of the judgment of the Supreme Court and has submitted that even the Supreme Court has held that parties should be permitted to adduce evidence if they are assailing any award. He has read the following paragraph which reads as under :-