LexGOVIND PRASAD SHARMA & ORS. versus DOON VALLEY OFFICERS COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2017] 7 S.C.R. 653 GOVIND PRASAD SHARMA & ORS. v. DOON VALLEY OFFICERS COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD (Civil Appeal No. 10786of2017) AUGUST 23, 2017 [R.F. NARIMAN AND SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, JJ.I A H Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - ss. 7 5 and 81 - By impugned judgment, demarcation report made by a government agency in the course of conciliation proceedings between the parties C admitted into evidence - Admissibility of the report challenged - Held: s. 75 contemplates that both the conciliator and the parties must keep as confidential all matters relating to conciliation proceedings - In the instant case, the demarcation report has its genesis only in the conciliation proceedings - Therefore, it cannot D be relied upon - Impugned judgment is set aside - However, it will be open for the respondent to adduce, by way of evidence, any report that he may obtain from authorities for the purpose of demarcating property, which may then be introduced by way of evidence in accordance with law. Disposing of the appeal, the. Court, HELD: 1. Reading of Section 75 shows that the object of the section is sub-served by the expression "relating to'' which is an expression of extremely wide import. It is clear, therefore, that both the conciliator and the parties must keep as confidential, E F all matters relating to conciliation proceedings. It is of no matter that the instant case does not fall within the four pigeon holes contained in Section 81, as otherwise, if there are insidious encroachments on confidentiality, a free and fair settlement may never be arrived at, thus stultifying the object sought to be achieved by Part III of the 1996 Act. [Paras 5, 71 [655-H; 656- G D,E) Renusagar Power Company Limited v. General Electric Company (1984) 4 SCC 679: [1985) 1 SCR 432; Ruby General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pearey Lal Kumar and Another 119521 SCR 501 - relied on. 653 H 654 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 7 S.C.R. A Union Carbide Canada Inc. and Dow Chemical Canada Inc. v. Bombardier Inc., Bombardier Recreational Products Inc. and Allianz Global Risks US Insurance Company [2014] 1 SCR 800 - distinguished. B c Case Law Reference [1985) 1 SCR 432 [1952) SCR 501 [2014) 1 SCR 800 relied on relied on distinguished Paras Para6 Para 8 CIVILAPPELLATEJURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 10786 of2017. From the impugned final Judgment and Order dated 12.12.2014 . passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in Writ Petition D No.2664 of2012 (M/S). E F V. Hansaria, Sr. Adv., P.I. Jose, Govind Prasad Sharma, Shashank Mishra, Ms. Pooja Mishra, Advs. for the Appellants. Hrishikesh Baruah, Pranav Jain, Advs. for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.F. NA~MAN, J. I. Leave granted. 2. The appellants are before us, against a judgment dated 12.12.2014, passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital, in which a demarcation report made by a government agency, in the course of conciliation proceedings between the parties, was sought to be relied upon. The Special Judge at Dehradun, specifically referring to Sections 75 and 81 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, dismissed the Revision Petition on 11.12.2012 that was filed against an order dated 06.12.2010, by which an application by the plaintiff for taking the said report as evidence was dismissed. Interfering with the said orders in a G Writ Petition filed, the impugned order has allowed the said report to be admitted into evidence. H 3. Mr. V. Hansaria, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, has argued that Section 75 is in very wide terms and that parties are to keep confidential all matters relating to conciliation GOVIND PRASAD SHARMA v. DOON VALLEY OFFICERS 655 COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. [R.F. NARIMAN, J.] proceedings. He also referred to Section 81 of the Act, and stated that A parties cannot rely upon or introduce as evidence in arbitral or judicial proceedings, proposals made by the conciliator under sub-clause (c) from which the said report emanated. 4. Mr. Hrishikesh Baruah, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, has argued that quite clearly none of the sub-clauses in B Section 81 would apply. ln any case, according to him, the various sub- clauses in Section 81 only reflect the extent of.confidentiality that arises out of the earlier sections contained in Part III dealing with Conciliation, · and that, the
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.