The Delhi High Court in Millennium School v. Pawan Dawar observed that section 65-B of the Evidence Act doesn’t apply to arbitral proceedings and although the principles of the Evidence Act usually apply, sensu stricto, the specific provisions of the Act do not apply.
The facts in the instant case are that the parties entered into an agreement wherein the respondent agreed to provide transportation services to the students and the employees of the petitioner using the buses owned by the petitioner. The agreement was for 8 years and provided a lock-in period of 5 years.
A dispute arose between the parties. The petitioner alleged deficiency in services of the respondent and the respondent alleged non-payment by the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner terminated the agreement. Subsequently, the respondent applied for the appointment of the arbitrator, and the Court referred the parties to the arbitration.
The Court while analysing the whole situation referred to R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder v. Arulmigu Viswesaraswami & V.P. Temple And Anr [1], wherein it was held by the top court that an objection with regard to a certificate of Section 65-B of the Evidence Act is not available if it is not taken at the material time.
The Supreme Court categorically said “Ordinarily, an objection to the admissibility of evidence should be taken when it is tendered and not subsequently……………… The crucial test is whether an objection, if taken at the appropriate point of time, would have enabled the party tendering the evidence to cure the defect and resort to such mode of proof as would be regular. The omission to object becomes fatal because by his failure the party entitled to object allows the party tendering the evidence to act on an assumption that the opposite party is not serious about the mode of proof. On the other hand, a prompt objection does not prejudice the party tendering the evidence, for two reasons: firstly, it enables the court to apply its mind and pronounce its decision on the question of admissibility then and there; and secondly, in the event of finding of the court on the mode of proof sought to be adopted going against the party tendering the evidence, the opportunity of seeking the indulgence of the court for permitting a regular mode or method of proof and thereby removing the objection raised by the opposite party, is available to the party leading the evidence….”
[1] (2003) 8 SCC 752