Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from two Commercial Arbitration Petitions filed by Kishor N. Shah and others against Urban Infrastructure Real Estate Fund and Urban Infrastructure Trustees Ltd. The Applicants sought to lead evidence through an affidavit from Mr. Parag Parekh, claiming it was necessary to establish that the Arbitrator had failed to disclose his involvement in another arbitration. The court noted that the Applicants had previously amended their petitions to include a ground of non-disclosure, which was allowed subject to the Respondents' rights being preserved. The Respondents opposed the introduction of the affidavit, arguing it was an abuse of process aimed at delaying the proceedings. The court analyzed the legal framework under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which mandates summary proceedings based on the arbitral record without the need for oral evidence. The court referenced several precedents, including Emkay Global Financial Services Ltd. v. Girdhar Sondhi, to support its position that the introduction of new evidence was not permissible unless exceptional circumstances were demonstrated. Ultimately, the court dismissed the Interim Applications, emphasizing the importance of maintaining the integrity and efficiency of arbitration proceedings.
Headnote
A) Arbitration - Non-Disclosure by Arbitrator - Permitting Evidence - Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 12 - The court held that the Applicants' request to introduce an affidavit regarding the Arbitrator's alleged non-disclosure was untenable as the evidence sought to be introduced was not part of the arbitral record and did not meet the requirements for exceptional circumstances. The court emphasized the need for expeditious resolution of arbitration disputes and dismissed the applications. (Paras 41-44).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Applicants should be permitted to lead evidence in the form of an affidavit regarding the Arbitrator's non-disclosure of involvement in another arbitration.
Final Decision
The court dismissed the Interim Applications, ruling that the introduction of new evidence was not maintainable under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, emphasizing the need for expeditious resolution of arbitration disputes.
Law Points
- Arbitration
- Interim Applications
- Evidence
- Disclosure
- Section 34
- Arbitration and Conciliation Act
- 1996
