Introduction 

• This is a landmark judgment where the Court discussed furnishing additional evidence at the stage of filing an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act). 
• The judgment was delivered by 2 judges- Justice MR Shah and Justice CT Ravikumar. 

Facts 

• An ex-parte award (no evidence was led by the respondents) was passed by the learned Arbitrators on 12th March 1998. 
• An application was filed under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A & C Act) by the respondents to set aside the award. 
• The respondents filed an interim application in Section 34 application to adduce additional evidence. 
• The Appellants filed objections to the interim application on the ground that it was not maintainable under the A & C Act. 
• The High Court allowed the application of the Respondents. 
• Finally, the case was presented before the Supreme Court.

Issue Involved

• Whether the Applicant can be permitted to adduce evidence to support the ground relating to Public Policy in an application filed under Section 34 of the A&C Act?   

Observations 

• The Court at the outset held that in case of arbitration proceedings commenced and concluded prior to the amendment of Section 34 (2) (a) by Act of 2019, pre-amendment of Section 34 (2) (a) of the Act shall be applicable. 
• It is to be noted that pre-amendment the words used in Section 34 (2) (a) were “furnish proof” instead of “establishes on the basis of the record of the arbitral tribunal” (introduced by the amendment of 2019). 
• The Court observed that the reason for enacting the 1996 Act was speedy resolution of disputes. 
• The said object will be defeated if an application for setting aside arbitral award will require anything beyond the record that was before the arbitrator. 
• However, in an exceptional case being made out and if it is brought to the Court on the matters not containing the record of the arbitrator that certain things are relevant for determination of issues arising under Section 32 (2) (a) of the Act, the party can be permitted to file affidavit in the form of evidence. 
• The Court held that the for the purpose of proving that the award was in conflict with public policy of India in a given case, evidence may be required to be led. However, if the same can be proved from the record before the arbitrator the person may not be permitted to file the affidavit by way of evidence/additional evidence.   
• The Court held that the evidence to be presented here was not the part of the record of the arbitral tribunal. Therefore, the High Court has not committed any error in permitting the respondents to file additional evidence. 
• Hence, the Court held that there is a strong exceptional case that is being made out by the respondents to permit them to file affidavits/adduce additional evidence. 

Conclusion 

• The Court in this case held that since the aim of the 1996 Act is to expedite the process of dispute resolution the object of the Act would be defeated if at the stage of Section 34 application anything more than the record of the arbitral tribunal is produced. 
• However, the same can be allowed in certain exceptional circumstances when absolutely necessary.