Section 65-B of The Evidence Act, does not apply to arbitral procedures.

In the matter of Millennium School vs Pawan Dawar, the Delhi High Court's Single Bench, led by Justice Vibhu Bakhru, held that Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 ("Evidence Act") does not apply to arbitral proceedings.

M/s Genesis Enterprises ('GE') is the respondent's company that provides transportation services. The parties reached an agreement in which the respondent committed to provide the petitioner with transportation services. The respondent committed to operate and maintain the petitioner's twenty-two school buses as well as provide the necessary personnel. In addition, he committed to offer more buses for the occasion. The contract was for eight years, ending on March 31, 2020, with the first five years serving as a lock-in period. In addition, he pledged to strictly adhere to all of the Agreement's requirements. The respondent asked the petitioner school's principal to release the unpaid funds under the Agreement since he was paying him in small installments after a delay. The Principal alleged flaws in the respondent's services and warned him that if they were not corrected within seven to ten days, the petitioner would be forced to take harsh action. The petitioner then decided to end the agreement. In the instant case titled Millennium School v. Pawan Dawar the issue raised before the High Court of Delhi for clarification was:

Whether the Tribunal's decision was illegal or not?

With regard to this issue, the Tribunal's judgement that the Agreement's termination was invalid was based on two findings: that the Agreement cannot be cancelled under Clause 33 of the Agreement during the lock-in period, and that the grounds for the termination fall under Clause 33 of the Agreement rather than Clause 1. The findings were marked as erroneous because the grounds of Clause 33 and Clause 1 overlapped. Although Section 65-B of the Evidence Act does not apply to arbitral proceedings, the Tribunal has ignored the whole evidence presented by the petitioner about failure of service only because the certificate issued under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act was defective. It was highlighted that the arbitrator cannot award damages in excess of the demand for the overdue Contract fee, extra cab expenses, and interest.

The Court categorically held that

"The Arbitral Tribunal has not addressed itself as to whether in fact, there was any deficiency of service warranting termination of the

Agreement. In view of the above, the finding of the Arbitral Tribunal that the

termination of the Agreement, is illegal and cannot be sustained."

As a result, the impugned judgement was set aside to the degree that it granted the respondent's claim for 12 lakhs in lost earnings and cab charges.