CASA2 Stays Pvt Ltd v. BBH Communications India Pvt Ltd observed and has held that the principles of natural justice are not violated when the opportunity to make oral submissions on an issue wasbeing granted but was not availed by the party.
The court in the case observed and has held that no party has the absolute right in order to insist on his convenience in every respect.
The bench comprising of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna in the case observed and has held that an Arbitrator has a right to manage the proceedings and also to give directions to the parties to be present on a particular date, time and place and this would be sufficient compliance of the principles of natural justice.
Further, it has also been remarked by the said court that when the dispute between the parties was based on documents, merely because the oral arguments were not addressed by a party, the same does not lead to inevitable denial of principles of natural justice, unless it is shown that a pertinent aspect was left unconsidered.
Background of the case:
The respondent, who being an company, entered into a contract with the appellant, engaged in hospitality under the ‘Fab Hotels.’ An agreement was being signed up with the respondent offering advertising services on April 26, 2018. Therefore, the contract term was March 19, 2018 and June 18, 2018 and an advance payment was made for an amount of Rs. 91,45,000/-. Thus, the remaining amount was invoiced of Rs. 91,45,000/- and the amount of Rs. 69,60,000/- was paid.
The said dispute arose which includes the delayed work, change in scope, and costs. The claims were filed by the respondent before the arbitrator and the arbitrator awarded an amount of Rs. 33,70,182/-, leading to the appellant’s objection, ultimately dismissed by the Commercial Judge on 19.02.2022. therefore, appellant filed an appeal under Section 37 of the Act, aggrieved by the rejection of its application under Section 34 of the Act.
Ground of Appeal By Appellant:
The appellant claimed before the court that they were being denied the opportunity to present oral arguments under Section 24 of the Act, 1996.
It has been argued by them that this denial constitutes a violation of the principle of natural justice and has led to a miscarriage of justice.
Court Analysis:
It has been examined by the court that the appellant’s objection on ‘audi alteram partem’ in arbitration and as per Section 34(2)(a)(iii) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, an award can be set aside if a party was not properly notified of the appointment of arbitrator’s or proceedings.
The court in the case observed that the dates were fixed for oral argument for the parties, however, on one occasion the counsel appearing for the appellant sought adjournment due to ill health and the adjournment was allowed by the arbitrator, yet on the alternative date another adjournment was sought as the counsel appearing for the appellant was busy with other professional commitments.
Therefore, the oral arguments were closed by the Tribunal and it permitted the appellant to file written submissions, however, the appellant did not submit its written submissions despite an extension being granted by the arbitrator.
It has also been observed by the said court that arbitrator followed natural justice by granting multiple opportunities to the appellant, firstly, to make oral submissions and then to file written submissions, which were not availed by the appellant.
The court while considering the facts and circumstances of the case stated that between the parties was based on documents and merely just because the oral arguments were not made by the appellant, it does not lead to inevitable denial of principles of natural justice, as the appellant could not show that a pertinent aspect was left unconsidered.
Accordingly, the court dismissed the appeal made by the appellant.
The counsel, Advocate Mr. Tishampati Sen, AdvocateMs. Riddhi Sancheti, AdvocateMr. Anurag Anand &AdvocateMr. Himanshu Kaushal appeared for the applicant.
The Counsel Advocate Mr. Amit Tyagi &Advocate Mr. Mukul Tyagi represented the respondent.
