Admissibility Of Additional Evidence In Indian Arbitration After Cross-Examination: A Jurisprudential Analysis Of Bombay High Court Judgements

Full Text Link

Aditya Kumar, BBA LL.B. (Hons.), NMIMS Kirit P. Mehta School of Law, Mumbai

ABSTRACT

The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 establishes a procedural framework that prioritises party autonomy, procedural flexibility, and expeditious dispute resolution. However, these objectives frequently come into tension with the principles of natural justice when parties seek to introduce additional evidence after cross-examination has concluded and evidence stands closed. This paper examines whether Indian arbitration law permits such belated production, and if so, under what conditions. Through a doctrinal analysis of key Bombay High Court decisions, namely Pradyuman Kumar Sharma v. Jaysagar M. Sancheti (2013), Montana Developers Pvt Ltd v. Aditya Developers (2016), and Saloni Business Park Pvt Ltd v. Trafigura Pvt Ltd (2024), this paper argues that there exists no absolute prohibition against post-closure evidence. Instead, Indian courts have evolved a nuanced framework based on arbitral discretion, the prohibition against lacuna-filling, absence of prejudice, and minimal judicial interference. The paper further situates this framework within the statutory scheme of the Act, particularly Sections 18, 19, 23, 24, 27, and 34, and proposes a coherent doctrinal test for future application.

184. ADMISSIBILITY OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IN INDIAN ARBITRATION AFTER CROSS-EXAMINATION- A

Download ADMISSIBILITY OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IN INDIAN ARBITRATION AFTER CROSS-EXAMINATION- A • 211KB