1. Application for condonation of delay filed in support of a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. (Para 3 )
Back
Next 
2000 Supreme(SC) 209
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
D.P.Mohapatra : N.Santosh Hegde : S.B.Majmudar
Transparent Packers
Versus
Arbitrator-cum-managing Director
Case No. : 652 of 2000
Date of Decision : 1/28/00
Important Points
An application for condonation of delay is maintainable when supported by an affidavit; oral evidence by the applicant entering the witness box is not a prerequisite for maintainability, although the opposing party may request cross-examination of the deponent.
Subject
Civil Law - Arbitration
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 34 - Application for condonation of delay - Maintainability of application supported by affidavit - Affidavit evidence is sufficient in support of an application for condonation of delay - If the opposing party desires the deponent to be present for cross-examination, such a request can be made - Dismissal of the application on the ground of non-maintainability due to lack of oral evidence cannot be sustained. (Para 3)
Facts of the case:
An application for condonation of delay was filed in support of a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The application was supported by an affidavit. The trial court and the High Court dismissed the application, holding that it was not maintainable because the applicant had not entered the witness box and that an affidavit of evidence was not appropriate evidence.
Findings of Court:
The court found that affidavit evidence is sufficient for an application for condonation of delay. The dismissal of such an application on the grounds of non-maintainability is unsustainable.
Issues: Whether an application for condonation of delay supported by an affidavit is maintainable or if the applicant must enter the witness box to provide evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: Affidavit evidence is sufficient to support an application for condonation of delay; the opposing party has the option to request the deponent's presence for cross-examination if required.
Result: Impugned orders set aside.
Facts of the case:
An application for condonation of delay was filed in support of a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The application was supported by an affidavit. The trial court and the High Court dismissed the application, holding that it was not maintainable because the applicant had not entered the witness box and that an affidavit of evidence was not appropriate evidence.
Findings of Court:
The court found that affidavit evidence is sufficient for an application for condonation of delay. The dismissal of such an application on the grounds of non-maintainability is unsustainable.
Issues: Whether an application for condonation of delay supported by an affidavit is maintainable or if the applicant must enter the witness box to provide evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: Affidavit evidence is sufficient to support an application for condonation of delay; the opposing party has the option to request the deponent's presence for cross-examination if required.
Result: Impugned orders set aside.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether an application for condonation of delay supported by an affidavit is maintainable or requires the applicant to provide oral evidence in the witness box. (Para 3 )
3. Affidavit evidence is sufficient for condonation of delay applications, and the opposing party may request cross-examination of the deponent if necessary. (Para 3 )
4. An application for condonation of delay cannot be dismissed as non-maintainable solely because it is supported by an affidavit instead of oral evidence. (Para 3 )
5. Impugned orders set aside; trial court directed to consider the application for condonation of delay on its merits in accordance with law. (Para 3 )
6. Is an affidavit sufficient evidence for an application for condonation of delay?
Yes, affidavit evidence is sufficient in support of an application for condonation of delay. If the opposing party desires to cross-examine the deponent, they may make such a request. (Para 3 )
7. Can a condonation of delay application be dismissed as non-maintainable for lack of oral evidence?
No, dismissal of an application for condonation of delay on the ground of alleged non-maintainability because the applicant did not enter the witness box cannot be sustained. (Para 3 )
(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 affidavit 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 obviously 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.
