LexSEROSOFT SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. versus DEXTER CAPITAL ADVISORS PVT. LTD.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 151 : 2025 INSC 26 Serosoft Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v. Dexter Capital Advisors Pvt. Ltd. (Civil Appeal No(s). 51-52 of 2025) 03 January 2025 [Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha* and Manoj Misra, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court has correctly exercised its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 in granting the respondent/claimant one more opportunity to cross-examine appellant/respondent’s witness, despite the Arbitral Tribunal rejecting such a prayer. Headnotes† Constitution of India – Art.227 – Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – ss.18, 29A – The respondent/claimant cross-examined RW-1 – The unrestrained cross-examination of RW-1 by the respondent/claimant already exceeded 12 hours, however, the respondent/claimant was unsatisfied and sought more opportunity to cross-examine – Arbitral Tribunal rejected such prayer – However, the High Court granted further opportunity to the respondent/claimant to cross-examine RW-1 – Correctness: Held: It is evident that the cross-examination of the appellant/ respondent’s witness RW-1 commenced on 09.12.2023 when the respondent/claimant’s counsel asked 9 questions on that very day and the cross was adjourned for 10.02.2024 – On 10.02.2024, the record shows that the cross-examination commenced at 11 am and concluded by 7 pm during which time the respondent/ claimant’s counsel asked as many as 104 questions to the said witness – After a long lapse of almost 8 months, during which period the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal was exhausted, the cross-examination commenced on 01.10.2024 – Even on that day the cross-examination was commenced at 5.35 pm and concluded at 7.40 pm, which is more than two hours – The Arbitral Tribunal seems to have given full opportunity to all parties, which is amply evident from the record – There is statutory obligation, * Author 152 [2025] 1 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports which is imposed on the judicial authorities – That is the statutory incorporation of judicial restraint in interfering with matters governed under Part I of the Act relating to arbitration agreement, composition and jurisdiction of Arbitral Tribunal, coupled with the conduct of the proceedings and making, challenge and enforcement of the award – In the instant case, the High Court should have restrained itself from interfering – The High Court has not indicated under what circumstances the order passed by the Tribunal was perverse – There is no justification in the order passed by the High Court in interfering with the directions of the Arbitral Tribunal holding that full and sufficient opportunity to cross-examine RW-1 has already been given and no further extension of time is warranted – For the reasons stated, the order passed by the High Court is set aside. [Paras 10, 12, 13, 14, 17] Case Law Cited Kelvin Air Conditioning and Ventilation System Pvt. Ltd. v. Triumph Reality Pvt. Ltd., 2024 SCC Online Del 7137 – referred to. List of Acts Constitution of India; Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. List of Keywords Article 227 of Constitution; Section 29A of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Supervisory jurisdiction; Cross-examination; More opportunity to cross-examine; Statutory obligation; Judicial restraint. Case Arising From CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 51-52 of 2025 From the Judgment and Order dated 25.10.2024 of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in CMM No. 3711 of 2024 and CMA No. 63047 of 2024 Appearances for Parties Jayant Mehta, Sr. Adv., M/s. Plr Chambers And Co., Suhaan Mukerji, Harsh Gursahani, Adarsh Kumar, Sayandeep Pahari, Tanmay Sinha, Ms. Jasleen Virk, Advs. for the Appellant. [2025] 1 S.C.R. 153 Serosoft Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v. Dexter Capital Advisors Pvt. Ltd. M.A. Niyazi, Advait Ghosh, Dawneesh Shaktivats, Tamjeed Ahmad, Ms. Mrinal, F.A. Khan, Ms. Anamika Ghai Niyazi, Ms. Kirti Bhardwaj, Ms. Nehmat Sethi, Arqam Ali, Advs. for the Respondent. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Judgment Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. The appellant and the respondent are parties in a pending arbitration. The question for consideration is whether the High Court has correctly exercised its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 in granting the respondent/claimant one more opportunity to cross- examine appellant/respondent’s witness, despite the Arbitral Tribunal rejecting such a prayer. 3. The brief facts leading to the present app
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.