Serosoft Solutions Pvt. Ltd. vs Dexter Capital Advisors Pvt. Ltd.

Court

Supreme Court of India

Date

3 January 2025

Case No.

Civil Appeal No(s). 51-52 of 2025

Result

Allowed

Bench

Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, Manoj Misra

Citation

[2025] 1 S.C.R. 151 : 2025 INSC 26

Acts & Sections

Constitution Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

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.

Headnote

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, 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]

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 appeals are as follows. The appellant/respondent, a startup company providing educational software and related services, and the re

View Subscription Plans →