The court emphasized the importance of allowing the petitioner's counsel to raise objections and held that completely rejecting the evidence of a party was not the correct procedure to follow in law.

JUDGMENT

Tushar Rao Gedela, J. (Oral)

[The proceeding has been conducted through Hybrid mode]

1. The petitioners challenge the order dated 15.04.2023 passed by the learned sole arbitrator in the matter titled as `Dhananjay Singh Rathore & Anr. Vs. M/s Parviom Technologies Pvt Ltd & Anr.' whereby the learned Arbitrator had closed the right of the petitioner/claimant to lead evidence by taking off the record the affidavit of the witnesses namely CW1 and CW2.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/claimant submits that for the reasons which are stated in the impugned order, the same cannot entail that the drastic measures to the extent of striking of the affidavit of CW1 and CW2 off the record leaving the petitioner/plaintiff to lead evidence to prove his case.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is absolutely perverse, illegal and contrary to the provisions known of law.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that even though the proceedings are conducted under the provisions of Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1966, the basic principles of natural justice inasmuch as the examination and cross examination of the witnesses to prove their own cases, cannot be struck off without any valid reason.

5. Mr. Luthra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the impugned order is sustainable for the reason that there was unnecessary interference and irrelevant objections and irrelevant reasons raised by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner /claimant before the learned Arbitrator.

6. Learned counsel submits that the interference was to such an extent that for every question there was an objection being raised unnecessarily.

7. On that basis, learned counsel submits that the impugned order is sustainable is law and ought not to be interfered by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

8. After hearing both the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that for the reasons which are stated in the impugned order, the consequence thereto is unsustainable. The reason of the counsel for claimant interfering or objecting to the cross-examination by learned respondent cannot entail striking of the directions in the complete evidence of both CW1 and CW2 for the reason contained in the impugned order are too drastic and completely extinguishes the case of the petitioner /claimant. This cannot be countenanced and is impermissible in law.

9. The interference or objections which are being raised by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner / claimant may or may not be sustainable in law, however, can be recorded and in case of interference beyond the procedure or legal aspects, the Arbitrator would be at liberty to control and curtail the same in accordance with law. However, passing such orders, where the evidence of a party is completely rejected, was as such not correct procedure to follow in law.

10. Having said that, this Court is conscious of the fact that the learned counsel for the petitioner /claimant has a right to raise objections as to the relevancy of the question being put across by learned counsel appearing for the respondent and not to interfere unnecessarily with the cross examination.

11. It is also made clear that the learned arbitrator shall also limit the para phrasing, editing or improving only to the extent where it is of a compelling nature and not otherwise.

12. This is categorically and vehemently disputed by learned counsel appearing for the respondent, who submits it was only legitimate objections to the comments, phrasing, editing and improvement on the questions being asked by the learned counsel, which were improved upon by the sole Arbitrator, that was objectionable.

13. In view of above, the impugned order is set aside.

14. It has been informed that the learned sole Arbitrator has adjourned the matter to 05.07.2023 and 06.07.2023.

15. The learned Arbitrator is directed to take on