The petitioner sought to quash an arbitrator's order rejecting I.A. No. IV, which prayed for recall of RW.1 for further cross-examination to address alleged contradictions overlooked during initial cross-examination. The arbitrator rejected the application, recording that the claimant had been given sufficient opportunity to cross-examine RW.1 at length and had done so fully, and that no cause was shown for recall.
The High Court, per Justice Jayant Banerji, held:
1. The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 contains a non-obstante clause (Section 5) restricting judicial intervention to provisions within the Act. Section 37 provides a limited right of first appeal, and the statutory policy favors finality and efficiency in arbitration.
2. While Article 227 remains untouched by Section 5, the High Court must be extremely circumspect in interfering with arbitral orders, restricting interference to orders patently lacking inherent jurisdiction (Deep Industries v. ONGC).
3. The power to recall witnesses under Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC is not a routine exercise; it requires independent justification and cannot be used to fill gaps or embellish evidence (K. Bharathamma v. Bandaru Sakku Bai). Even though arbitral tribunals are not bound by CPC (Section 19), the arbitrator here gave due consideration to the application.
4. Courts should not exercise discretion to allow judicial interference beyond the statutory procedure except in exceptional rarity where a party is left remediless or bad faith is shown (Bhaven Construction v. Executive Engineer).
5. The arbitrator's order rejecting the recall application was neither perverse nor jurisdictionally flawed. The petitioner had full opportunity to cross-examine, and the alleged omissions were due to bona fide oversight, which is not a valid ground for recall.
Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed.
