Mr. Ravi Kapoor and Mr. Sameer Dawar, Advocates v. RK SINHA AND ASSOCIATES AND ORS

Judgment

1. This is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 29.01.2025, passed by the Sole Arbitrator in arbitration proceedings titled “M/s. R.K. Sinha & Associates & Anr. Vs. M/s. Pyramid Finmart Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.”

The brief factual background of the matter is that petitioner company being engaged in the business of land sale, purchase and Signature Not Verified CM(M) 252/2025 Digitally Signed By:SUNITA KUMARI Signing Date:25.02.2025 10:29:25 construction was approached by the respondents to purchase the land situated at Yamuna Express Highway. Petitioner No. 1and respondent No. 1 entered into an agreement to sell dated 20.11.2018.

3. During the performance of the contract, certain disputes arose between the parties. Petitioner filed petition under Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act for appointment of an Arbitrator before the High Court.

4. Vide order dated 20.01.2022, Sole Arbitrator was appointed to adjudicate the disputes between the parties.

5. Complainant’s evidence was closed. Petitioner filed two affidavits as evidence – RW-1 by affidavit dated 14.12.2024 and RW- 2 by affidavit dated 12.01.2025. RW-1 is the Senior Manager of petitioner while RW-2 is the Director of the petitioner.

6. Learned counsel for the claimant submitted before Arbitrator that examination and cross examination of RW-2 be conducted as the first witness.

7. Vide order dated 29.01.2025, the learned Arbitrator was of the view that RW-2 is the main witness in the matter, and therefore, he be examined and cross examined as a first witness. Learned Arbitrator observed that RW-1 was not involved in the transaction. However, direction was issued that both the witnesses shall remain present on the dates fixed for evidence.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that it is the sole prerogative of the party to determine the sequence by which it wishes to lead its evidence. It is further submitted that only the petitioner Signature Not Verified CM(M) 252/2025 Digitally Signed By:SUNITA KUMARI Signing Date:25.02.2025 10:29:25 company is the signatory to the contract and that respondent No. 3 was neither a party to the contract nor has entered into any arbitration agreement with respondents No. 1 & 2. He merely signed the agreement as the Director of the petitioner company and not in his personal capacity.

9. It is further submitted that there was no occasion for piercing the corporate veil of the petitioner company as the company is a separate and distinct entity. It is also argued that RW-1 Anand Kumar Tiwari had signed the pleadings on behalf of the petitioner company. RW-1 is the authorized signatory of the petitioner company, and therefore, in accordance with provisions of Rule 3-A of Order 18 CPC, it was RW-1 which ought to be examined first and not respondent No. 3.

10. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed strong reliance on the following judgments:- i) ii) In Re: Agya Boortmalt Ltd 2012 SCC OnLine CLB 39; Swardharma Swarajya Sangha v. Indian Commerce & Industries Company, 1997 SCC OnLine Mad 766; iii) BOC India v. Zinc Products, 1996 SCC OnLine Pat 563; iv) M/s Nimbro v. National Insurance Co., 1990 SCC OnLine Del v) vi)