FIZA DEVELOPERS & INTER-TRADE P. LTD. versus AMCI (I) PVT. LTD. & ANR.

Citation: [2009] 12 S.C.R. 1 · Decided: 27-07-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.V. RAVEENDRAN · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 12 S.C.R. 1 
FIZA DEVELOPERS & INTER-TRADE P. LTD. 
A 
v. 
AMCI (I) PVT. LTD. & ANR. 
(Civil Appeal No. 5139 of 2009) 
JULY 27, 2009 
[R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND 8. SUDERSHAN 
REDDY, JJ.] 
ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996: 
s. 34(2) - Application for setting aside an award -
Framing of issues -
HELD: Framing of issues as 
contemplated under Or. 14, r. 1 CPC is not an integral part of 
the process of proceedings u/s 34 of the Act - Having regard 
8 
c 
to the object of the Act in providing an expeditious alternative D 
binding dispute resolution process with minimal court 
.,. 
intervention, proceedings u/s 34 are summary in nature and 
are not envisaged as full-fledged regular suits under CPC -
An application uls 34 has to be considered, bearing three 
factors in mind (i) that the Act is a special enactment and s.34 
provides for a special remedy; (ii) that an arbitration award can E 
be set aside only if one of thtJ grounds mentioned in sub-s. 
(2) of s.34 .exists; and (iii) that proceedings u/s 34 require to 
~ 
be dealt with expeditiously - Burden of proof is on the pe~on 
who makes the application - Therefore, the question arising 
for adjudication as also the person on whom the burden of F 
proof is placed are statutorily specified - Framing of issues 
is necessary only where different types of material proposition 
of fact or law are affirmed by one party and denied by the other 
and it is, therefore, necessary for court to identify the issues 
and specify the party on whom the burden to prove the same G 
;k lies -
When this exercise has already been done by the 
statute, there is no need to frame the issues - An application 
uls 34 of the Act is a single issue proceeding, where the very 
fact that the application has been instituted under the· 
1 
H 
2 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 12 S.C.R. 
A particular provision declares the issue involved - Any further 
exercise to frame issues will only delay the proceedings - It 
._ 
is, thus, clear that issues need not be framed in an application 
uls 34 of the Act - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Or. 14, 
r. 1 - High Court of Karnataka Arbitration (Proceedings before 
B the Courts) Rules, 2001 - r.4(b) r/w r.12. 
s. 34 - Proceedings under - Nature of - Adverscirial or 
otherwise - Explained. 
Law & Practice of Arbitration and Conciliation by O.P. 
C Malhotra, First Edition, Page 768; and Advanced Law Lexicon 
by P. Ramanatha Iyer, Third Edition, Vol. I, Page 152 -
referred to. 
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA ARBITRATION 
D (PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURTS) RULES, 2001: 
r. 4(b) rlw r12 - Proceedings under - Nature of - Though 
r.4(b) requires an application u/s 34 of 1996 Act to be 
registered as an arbitration suit attracting provisions of CPC, 
r.4 has to be read with r.12 which makes it clear that provisions 
E of CPC will be applicable only to the extent considered 
necessary - Rules were made to give effect to the provisions 
of the Act and should be understood in consonance with 
specific provisions and object of the Act - Arbitration and 
Conciliation Act, 1996 - s. 34(2) - Code of Civil Procedure, 
F 1908 - Or. 14, r.1. 
CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908: 
Or. 14, r. 1 - Framing of issues - HELD: The object of 
issues is to focus upon the questions on which evidence has 
G to be led and to indicate the party on whom burden of proof 
lies - Framing of issues is necessary in every contested 
.J. 
regular civil suit - But in proceedings which are intended to 
be summary in nature, issues are not framed - However, when 
H 
it is said that issues are not necessary, it does not mean that 
FIZA DEVE~OP~R$ &. INTER·TRADE P. LTD. v. 
3 
AM01 0) PVT. LTD. & ANR. 
evidence is not necessary - Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 
A 
1996 - s.34. 
Makhan Lal Bangal V. Manas Bhunia 2001 (2) sec 652, 
relied on,. 
Case Law Reference: 
2001 (a) sec ss2 
relied on 
para 7 
CIVIL AP PELLA TE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.5139 
-1 
of 2009. 
From the Judgment & Order dated 27.2.2009 of the High 
Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Writ Appeal No. 1681 of 
2008. 
B 
c 
P.P. Rao, C. Paramasivam, P. Ramesh, R. Aneeshan, 
D 
Rakesh K. Sharma for the Appellants. 
P.V. Shetty, G.N. Reddy, Vijay Kumar for the Respondents. 
The Order of the Court was delivered by 
ORDER 
R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J. 1. The respondent has entered 
appearance through caveat. Leave granted. Heard the learned 
~ 
counsel. 
E 
F 
2. Certain disputes between respondent and appellant 
were referred to arbitration. The Arbitrato

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.