M/s. Transparent Packers Vs. The Arbitrator-cum-Managing Director & Anr.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 652 of 2000
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 16931 of 1999)
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 16931 of 1999)
Petitioner: M/s. Transparent Packers
Respondent: The Arbitrator-cum-Managing Director & Anr.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 652 of 2000
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 16931 of 1999)
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 16931 of 1999)
Judges: S.B. MAJMUDAR, D.P. MOHAPATRA & N. SANTOSH HEGDE, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Jan 28, 2000
Head Note:
ARBITRATION
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
Section 34 – Application for condonation of delay – Application accompanied by affidavit evidence – Application rejected on the ground of nonappearance of the Appellant in person – Validity – Whether affidavit evidence insufficient for condoning delay. Held affidavit evidence is sufficient evidence in support of applica-tion for condonation of delay. If the other side wants the depon-ent to be present for cross examination, it is open to it to make such request. Application directed to be considered accordingly on merits.
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. We have heard learned senior Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel for Respondent No. 2 which is the contesting Respondent finally in this appeal. Respondent No. 1 is a proforma respondent.
3. The short question is whether the application for condonation of delay moved by the Appellant in support of its application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 could have been disposed of by the Court by holding that the application supported by affidavit filed was not maintainable. Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 2 vehemently contended that the Appellant should have entered into the witness box and affi-davit of evidence was not appropriate evidence. It is difficult to appreciate this contention which has weighed with the learned trial court. The revision application filed by the Appellant is also dismissed by the High Court. In our view, the affidavit evidence would have been sufficient evidence in support of the application for condonation of delay and if the other side wants the deponent to be present for cross-examination, it would ob-viously be open to the other side to make such a request. We are not concerned with the merits of the controversy whether the application for condonation of delay should be allowed or not but dismissal of the application for condonation of delay on the ground of its alleged non-maintainability cannot be sustained. The impugned order of the High Court and that of the trial court are set aside. The application for condonation of delay filed in connection with the petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 will now be considered by the trial court after hearing the parties on merits and in accordance with law. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. No costs.
1. Leave granted.
2. We have heard learned senior Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel for Respondent No. 2 which is the contesting Respondent finally in this appeal. Respondent No. 1 is a proforma respondent.
3. The short question is whether the application for condonation of delay moved by the Appellant in support of its application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 could have been disposed of by the Court by holding that the application supported by affidavit filed was not maintainable. Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 2 vehemently contended that the Appellant should have entered into the witness box and affi-davit of evidence was not appropriate evidence. It is difficult to appreciate this contention which has weighed with the learned trial court. The revision application filed by the Appellant is also dismissed by the High Court. In our view, the affidavit evidence would have been sufficient evidence in support of the application for condonation of delay and if the other side wants the deponent to be present for cross-examination, it would ob-viously be open to the other side to make such a request. We are not concerned with the merits of the controversy whether the application for condonation of delay should be allowed or not but dismissal of the application for condonation of delay on the ground of its alleged non-maintainability cannot be sustained. The impugned order of the High Court and that of the trial court are set aside. The application for condonation of delay filed in connection with the petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 will now be considered by the trial court after hearing the parties on merits and in accordance with law. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. No costs.
