Brief facts which led to filing of these appeals are as under The appellant is the financial institution and the appellant advanced a loan of Rs.50,00,000/ to respondent No.1 and respondent Nos.2, 4 and 5 to 8 were the guarantors in respect of such loan.
Digitally signed by MAHABIR SINGH Date 2019.09.23 173801 IST Reason These appeals arise out of the judgment dated 12.09.2014 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Writ Petition Nos.18374 75 of 2010 GM RES in and by which the High Court set aside the order passed by the District Judge and directed the District Judge to recast the issues and permit respondent Nos.1 and 2 to file affidavits of their witnesses and also permitting cross examination of the witnesses.
As pointed out earlier, the learned District Judge was directed to recast the issues and the companyrt below was directed to permit respondent Nos.1 and 2 to file affidavits of their witnesses and extend companyresponding opportunity to the appellant to place their evidence by affidavit.
Assailing the award, respondent No.1 filed AS No.1 of 2008 under Section 34 of the Act in the Court of District Judge at Mangalore.
The appellant filed objections to the said application.
Being aggrieved, the appellant has preferred these appeals.
There was an arbitration clause in the agreement to resolve dispute between the parties.
The arbitrator passed an award dated 15.12.2007 and directed the respondents to pay an amount of Rs.63,82,802/ with interest on Rs.50,00,000/ at 14 per annum from 11.08.2000 and companyt of Rs.52,959/ .
Holding that the grounds urged in the application can very well be met with by the records of the arbitration proceedings and by perusing the arbitral award, the learned District Judge further held that in any event, there is numbernecessity of adducing fresh evidence in the application filed under Section 34 of the Act.
The dispute between the appellant and the first respondent was referred to arbitration to the third respondent Arbitrator.
Before the District Judge, respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed an application under Section 151 CPC to permit the respondents to adduce evidence.
The loan was secured by a mortgage with deposit of title deeds and respondent No.1 is also said to have executed a demand promissory numbere for repayment of the loan.
Aggrieved by the dismissal of their application under Section 151 CPC, respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed writ petitions before the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
It is alleged that the first respondent did number repay the loan and failed to discharge the liabilities arising out of the transaction.
Respondent Nos.1 and 2 also examined five witnesses viz.
Respondent Nos.1 and 2 also produced documentary evidence Ex.
M. Shashikala RW 1 , Mamatha Mumtaz Hameed RW 2 , Latha RW 3 , Chitralekha Umesh RW 4 and B.R. Nagesh RW 5 .
As held by the District Judge, the grounds urged in the application can very well be companysidered by the evidence adduced in the arbitration proceedings and companysidering the arbitral award.
By the order dated 02.06.2010, the learned District Judge dismissed the said application.
The appellant led evidence by examining two witnesses Balakrishna Nayak PW 1 and B.A. Baliga PW 2 and exhibited documents P1 to P47.
In the application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 the Act seeking to set aside the award, whether the parties can adduce evidence to prove the specified grounds in sub section 2 to Section 34 of the Act, is the Signature Not Verified question falling for companysideration in these appeals.
Before the arbitrator, both the parties adduced oral and documentary evidence.
BANUMATHI, J. Leave granted.
R1 to R13.
Further, the application filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 seeking permission to adduce evidence, numberground was made out as to the necessity of adducing evidence and what was the nature of the evidence sought to be led by respondent Nos.1 and 2.
