- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Sandeep Kumar v. Dr. Ashok Hans And Anr.
Factual and Procedural Background
The appellant challenged an order dated 16 April 2001 of the Additional District Judge in Suit No. 956-A/1998. The appellant had filed objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to set aside an arbitral Award dated 2 June 1998 passed by respondent No. 2. The Trial Court framed two issues on 10 December 1999: (1) whether the Award dated 02.06.1998 is liable to be set aside; and (2) whether the petition is time barred. No evidence was led by the parties. The Trial Court decided the first issue against the petitioner and the second issue against respondent No.1 and in favour of the petitioner.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the Award dated 02.06.1998 is liable to be set aside as alleged ? OPP
- Whether the petition is time barred ? OPD
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court noted that Section 34 of the Act does not require parties to lead evidence. The record of the Arbitrator was available to the learned Additional District Judge, and the proper course was to examine that record to determine whether the objections under Section 34 were maintainable. The Additional District Judge did not review the Arbitrator's record as required. Because the judge failed to perform the necessary review, the impugned order was set aside and the matter was remitted for decision based on the Arbitrator's record.
Holding and Implications
The impugned order dated 16th April, 2001 is set aside and the appeal is disposed of.
Consequences: The learned Additional District Judge is directed to decide the objections under Section 34 on the basis of the record of the Arbitrator. CM No. 335/2002 is disposed of. The parties are to appear before the learned District Judge on 8 March 2004 for assignment to the appropriate court. No new precedent was stated.
1. The appellant is aggrieved by an order dated 16th April, 2001 passed by the learned Additional District Judge in Suit No. 956-A/1998.
2. The appellant has filed objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“the Act” for short) for setting aside an Award dated 2nd June, 1998 passed by respondent No. 2.
3. The learned Trial Court framed the following issues on 10th December, 1999:
“1. Whether the Award dated 02.06.1998 is liable to be set aside as alleged ? OPP 2. Whether the petition is time barred ? OPD”
4. Since the parties did not lead any evidence, the first issue was decided against the petitioner and in favour of the respondents while the second issue was decided against respondent No. 1 and in favour of the petitioner.
5. There is no requirement under the provisions of Section 34 of the Act for parties to lead evidence.
6. The record of the Arbitrator was before the learned Additional District Judge and what was required to be done was to go through the record and find out whether the objections were maintainable or not.
7. This was not done by the learned Additional District Judge. Under circumstances, the impugned order dated 16th April, 2001 is set aside. The learned Additional District Judge will decide the objections on the basis of the record of the learned Arbitrator.
8. The appeal is disposed of.
9. CM No. 335/2002 also stands disposed of.
10. The parties will appear before the learned District Judge on 8th March, 2004 who will assign the case to appropriate Court.
Alert