R.P. SondurBaldota, J.:— This is the Chamber Summons is taken out by the petitioner for amendments to the petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act in terms of the schedule annexed to the Chamber Summons. According to the petitioner, the amendments are necessitated to bring on record certain subsequent events. It is opposed by the respondent.
2. The award impugned in the petition is by Tribunal constituted by the Cotton Association of India (CAI). It has been confirmed by the Appellate Bench also constituted by CAI. The first proposed amendment by the petitioner is to bring on record the entire history of CAI right since inception i.e. since the year 1932-1933 to contend that CAI has ceased to be entitled to carry out any of the statutory functions entrusted to it under the Forward Contracts (Regulations) Act. The reason stated therefore is that the Board of Directors of CAI had passed a resolution for being itself derecognised and also to de-register itself under Forward Contracts (Regulations) Act. But it is not yet re-recognised or de-registered.
3. The arbitration herein was conducted with the panel of three arbitrators, who had been appointed under Rule 20 of the Rules of Arbitration of Cotton Association of India. The petitioner claims that it recently learnt that the Cotton Association of India has become defunct and it is also no longer recognised by the Government of India. Undisputedly, the parties have participated before the Arbitral panel and after giving complete hearing to both the sides, the impugned award has been passed. In that case, even if the claim of the petitioner that Cotton Association of India has become defunct is accepted, the Arbitral proceedings cannot be said to be affected. This ground of challenge will clearly be beyond the scope of Section 34 of the Arbitration Act.
4. The second amendment sought is for production of certain original Proof of Delivery of correspondence. The petitioner has relied upon letter dtd. 15 December, 2010 sent by it to the respondent. The respondent disputed receipt of the letter. It had alleged that the signature of it's representative appearing on the acknowledgment was a forged one and it did not match with the admitted signature. At the relevant time, the petitioner was unable to produce the original Proof of Delivery, since the same was not traceable. The petitioner contends that after the present petition was filed, the original Proof of Delivery was found with the Notary Public through whom certain documents including the xerox of the Proof of Delivery was got notarised. Mr. Thakkar, the learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the Arbitral Tribunal has observed in the impugned award that it was not possible for it to compare the signature on the xerox of the Proof of Delivery with the original admitted signature. Therefore the petitioner should be permitted to plead the fact and produce the original Proof of Delivery. Such a course of action which is permitted in an appeal from the decree of the Civil Court is not permitted in the limited challenge to the arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act. In any case as has been pointed out by Mr. Purohit, the learned advocate for the respondent, even after expressing doubt as regards the ackowledgment, the Arbitrators have in fact considered the contents of the letter dtd. 15 December, 2010 in their award and the arguments of the petitioner based thereon. In the circumstance, any observations as regards the Proof of Delivery becomes irrelevant. Therefore, the Chamber Summons is dismissed.