Back
2025 Supreme(Jhk) 769
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.
Oil And Natural Gas Corporation Limited - Appellant
Versus
M/s H.N. Roy - Respondent
C.M.P. No. 1031 of 2024
Decided On : 24-03-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Rahul Lamba
For the Respondents: Vibhor Mayank, Shivam Kumar
Arbitral records are essential for adjudication of applications under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, and courts should ensure proper processes are followed to uphold the integrity of arbitral awards.
Headnote:(A) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 34 - Application for setting aside of an arbitral award - Petitioner sought to challenge an order rejecting a request for arbitration records in connection with an arbitration case - The court emphasized the necessity of arbitral records for adjudication under Section 34. (Paras 3, 6, 7)
(B) Law of Evidence in Arbitration - Court affirmed that an application to set aside must rely on the record before the arbitrator and does not require framing issues or oral evidence unless absolutely necessary. (Paras 6)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a company engaged in CBM Gas sales, entered an agreement with the opposite party for supply. A dispute arose after the opposite party stopped taking gas, leading to arbitration which ruled in favor of the opposite party. The petitioner sought to invoke Section 34 to set aside the award but faced rejection in calling arbitration records.
Findings of Court:
The impugned order rejecting the request for records was set aside, affirming the necessity of such records in deciding the case under Section 34.
Issues: Whether the rejection of the request for arbitration records was lawful under Section 34?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that arbitral records are crucial for substantiating claims under Section 34, relying on precedents which outline the minimal requirements for such proceedings.
Result: The order was set aside, and the application was restored for fresh consideration.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. discusses the initiation of arbitration. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. details on the contractual agreement and application for arbitration. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. court's examination of the necessity of arbitration records. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. conclusion concerning the validity of the order and direction for fresh consideration. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
JUDGMENT :
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.
1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the sole opposite party.
2. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside of the order dated 12.09.2024 passed by learned Commercial Court/District Judge - 1st Bokaro in Arbitration Case No.08/2022 whereby the application dated 01.06.2024 filed by the petitioner in the said proceeding was rejected by the learned Court. Further prayer is made for direction to call for the records of the relevant arbitration proceeding before adjudicating the Arbitration Case No.08 of 2022, which is a case filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking setting aside of the Arbitral Award dated 17.07.2022.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act, 2013 and is inter alia engaged in business of development and production of Coal Bed Methane Gas (hereinafter referred as “CBM Gas”) in and around district of Bokaro. He submits that the petitioner had issued a tender on 11.08.2017 for sale of CBM Gas for three blocks and the said tender for Bokaro block was allotted to the sole opposite party. The sole opposite party and the petitioner on 16.04.2018 entered into an agreement for sale of CBM Gas. He further submits that the opposite party on 25.04.2018 applied to Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board (“PNGRB”) the government regulatory authority, for taking the No Objection Certificate (NOC) for selling the CBM Gas. Subsequently, the opposite party had also applied to Petroleum and Explosives Organization (PESO) another government authority for carrying out its business of selling the CBM Gas. The petitioner has accepted the readiness of supply of the said gas by letter dated 05.07.2019 and PESO gave its final approval/NOC to the opposite party on 04.10.2019 and following the other procedure the agreement has been signed on 16.04.2018. He submits that the dispute arose in view of the fact that the petitioner made several requests to the opposite party for taking the supply of gas from the petitioner but the opposite party did not restart taking the supply of gas from the petitioner after 18.03.2020 and by notice dated 27.12.2020 invoked the arbitration clause of the said agreement for adjudication of the dispute by the learned Arbitral Tribunal comprising of three arbitrators and pursuant to that the retired two Judges of this Court Justice R.K. Merathia (Retd.) and Justice D.K. Sinha (Retd.) along with Mr. Rahul Gupta, Advocate have been appointed in Arbitral Tribunal. After hearing the parties, learned Arbitral Tribunal has awarded the award in favour of the sole opposite party. He submits that in view of that Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was invoked and the proper petition was filed before the learned Commercial Court, Bokaro which was registered as Arbitration Case No.08 of 2022 in which a petition was filed on 01.06.2024 for calling of the Arbitral record which has been rejected by the learned Tribunal by order dated 12.09.2024 only on the ground that since arbitral award is on record, there is no need to call for record of arbitration proceeding. He draws the attention of the Court to Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and submits that section is very much clear that the case has to be established on the basis of record of the Arbitral Tribunal and in view of that the learned Court has wrongly passed the said order. On this ground, he submits that the said order may kindly be set aside
