2019年9月23日，在M/S.Canara Nidhi Limited vs M. Shashikala一案中，印度最高法院认为，申请撤销仲裁裁决通常不要求提供仲裁记录以外的任何内容。然而，如果此类记录中未包含某些必要事项以确定是否有第34条第2款第a项有关的事项时，则此类事项可以通过双方提交的宣誓书的方式通知到法院。除非绝对必要，否则不允许对宣誓人进行盘问，这是因为通过审阅双方提交的宣誓书后事实就会呈现出来（an application for setting aside an arbitral award will not ordinarily require anything beyond the record that was before the arbitrator. However, if there are matters not contained in such record, and are relevant to the determination of issues arising under Section 34(2)(a), they may be brought to the notice of the Court by way of affidavits filed by both parties. Cross-examination of persons swearing to the affidavits should not be allowed unless absolutely necessary, as the truth will emerge on a reading of the affidavits filed by both parties）。

一、背景介绍

在根据1996年《仲裁与调解法》第34条提出的要求撤销裁决的申请中，当事方就是否可以提供证据来证明“未经验证的签名”问题是否属于可依据第34条第（2）款撤销裁决的理由提起上诉。本上诉源于卡纳塔克邦高等法院在班加罗尔就2010年第18374-75号令（GM-RES）中于2014年12月12日作出的判决，高等法院在该判决中撤销了地方法院法官作出的指令并指示地方法院法官重审该问题，并允许1号和2号被申请提交其证人的宣誓书，并允许对证人进行盘问。

上诉人是金融机构，上诉人向第一被申请人提供了50,000,000卢比的贷款，而第二，第四和第五至第八被申请人是该笔贷款的担保人。这笔贷款以房产契据作为抵押，据主张第一被诉人已签发了本票以偿还贷款。各方当事人争议解决和解协议中有一个仲裁条款，据主张第一被诉人没有偿还贷款，也没有履行交易中产生的债务。上诉人与第一被申请人之间的争议由第三被申请人作为仲裁员仲裁。双方在仲裁员面前提供口头和书面证据。仲裁员于2007年12月15日作出裁决，指示被申请人支付63,82,802卢比的款项，以及自2000年8月11日起按年利率14％支付的50,00,000卢比的利息和52,959卢比的费用。

第一被申请人根据《仲裁与调解法》第34条的规定，于2008年1月于曼格洛尔地方法院对裁决提起异议。第一和第二被申请人向地方法院法官根据《仲裁与调解法》第151条提起诉讼，要求允许被申请人提供证据。上诉人对该申请提出异议。根据2010年6月2日的命令，地方法院法官驳回了该申请，理由是对仲裁程序进行记录和寻求仲裁裁决都可以很好地满足申请的要求，无论如何，在任何情况下都不必根据该法第34条在申请中提供新的证据。

第一和第二被申请人不服申请被驳回，并根据印度《宪法》第226条和第227条向高级法院提出了书面诉求。高等法院对错误判决批准了请求令状，并指地方法官重审，并允许第一和第二被申请人提交证人的宣誓书，并进一步对证人进行盘问。在参考了Fiza Developers and Inter-Trade Private Limited v. AMCI (India) PrivateLimited and another (2009) 17 SCC 796案的判决后，高等法院认为，为了证明《仲裁与调解法》第34（2）条所规定的理由存在，第一和第二被申请人应被允许提交其证人的宣誓书。在被上诉的判决中，高等法院的结论是地区法院法官不允许第一和第二被申请人提交自己的宣誓书以及其他证人的宣誓书来证明他们的案情的做法是错误的，并且违反既定的法律原则。就此，最高法院于2015年1月6日下达公告令，并进一步下指令2008年的AS No.1程序中止执行。

二、法院认定

在Fiza Developers一案中，印度最高院在听取双方代理人的意见之后裁定，尽管其认为《仲裁与调解法》第34条提出的申请是简易程序，但需要给上诉人提供一个机会，以证明存在有《仲裁与调解法》第34条第（2）款项下的任何理由（“the applications under Section 34 of the Act are summary proceedings, an opportunity to the aggrieved party has to be afforded to prove existence of any of the grounds under Section 34(2) of the Act”）。因此，法院允许申请人对此提交其证人的宣誓书作证。

法院审核了在Fiza Developers and Inter-Trade Private Limited v. AMCI (India) Private Limited and another (2009) 17 SCC 796案第31段中，印度最高法院裁定根据《仲裁与调解法》第34条提出的申请是简易程序，其中有被告-被申请人可提出异议，然后是申请人有机会“证明”第34条第2款规定的任何理由的存在（Applications under Section 34 of the Act are summary proceedings with provision for objections by the respondent- defendant, followed by an opportunity to the applicant to “prove” the existence of any ground under Section 34(2)）。允许申请人提交其证人的宣誓书作为证据，被告-被申请人也有相应的机会通过宣誓书来作证。如有必要，法院允许对宣誓宣誓书的人进行盘问（The applicant is permitted to file affidavits of his witnesses in proof. A corresponding opportunity is given to the respondent-defendant to place his evidence by affidavit. Where the case so warrants, the court permits cross-examination of the persons swearing to the affidavit.）。此后，法院听取论点和/或接收书面陈述并作出裁决。这是常规程序。法院也可以根据任何特定案件的事实或当地法规改变上述程序。但是显然，根据《民事诉讼法典》第14号命令第1条规则构想的问题的构建并不是根据《仲裁与调解法》第34条进行的诉讼程序的组成部分。（Thereafter, the court hears arguments and/or receives written submissions and decides the matter. This is of course the routine procedure. The court may vary the said procedure, depending upon the facts of any particular case or the local rules. What is however clear is that framing of issues as contemplated under Rule 1 of Order 14 of the Code is not an integral part of the process of a proceedings under Section 34 of the Act.）

在Fiza Developers案后，2016年第3号法案对第34条进行了修改，新加了第（5）款和第（6）款，其内容如下：

34.申请撤销仲裁裁决。……

（5）根据本款提出的申请，只有在一方向另一方发出事先通知后，该方才能提出，并且该申请应附有申请人的宣誓书，以证明其遵守了上述要求。（(5) An application under this section shall be filed by a party only after issuing a prior notice to the other party and such application shall be accompanied by an affidavit by the applicant endorsing compliance with the said requirement.）

（6）根据本条提出的申请，应迅速处理，并且无论如何应在自将第（5）款所指的通知送达另一方之日起一年之内处理完毕。（(6) An application under this section shall be disposed of expeditiously, and in any event, within a period of one year from the date on which the notice referred to in sub-section (5) is served upon the other party.）

法院回顾了Srikrishna委员会在Fiza Developers案后审查了仲裁制度，并指出根据《仲裁与调解法》第34条在诉讼中提供证据的机会导致了实践中的不一致的做法。该委员会报告如下：《仲裁与调解法》第34条第（2）款规定了在某些情况下法院撤销仲裁裁决。申请撤销仲裁裁决的当事方必须向法院提供证据。该提供证据的要求导致一些高等法院的做法不一致，导致这些高等法院坚持以常规民事诉讼的方式来处理第34条程序。尽管最高法院在Fiza Developers & Inter-Trade (P) Ltd. v. AMCI (India) (P) Ltd.(2009) 17 SCC 796案中裁定根据第34条进行的诉讼不应以《民事诉讼法典》第14号命令第1条规则的民事诉讼方式进行，但仍有法院如此行事。有鉴于此，委员会认为可以对第34条第（2）款第（a）项作出适当的修改，将“提供证据”（“furnishes proof that”）改为“根据仲裁庭的记录证明”（“establishes on the basis of the Arbitral Tribunal’s record that”）。（ Sub-section (2)(a) of Section 34 of the ACA provides for the setting aside of arbitral awards by the court in certain circumstances. The party applying for setting aside the arbitral award has to furnish proof to the court. This requirement to furnish proof has led to inconsistent practices in some High Courts, where they have insisted on Section 34 proceedings being conducted in the manner as a regular civil suit. This is despite the Supreme Court ruling in Fiza Developers & Inter-Trade (P) Ltd. v. AMCI (India) (P) Ltd. (2009) 17 SCC 796 that proceedings under Section 34 should not be conducted in the same manner as civilsuits, with framing of issues under Rule 1 of Order 14 of the CPC. In light of this, the Committee is of the view that a suitable amendment may be made to Section 34(2)(a) to ensure that proceedings under Section 34 are conducted expeditiously. Recommendation: An amendment may be made to Section 34(2) (a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, substituting the words ‘furnishes proof that’ with the words ‘establishes on the basis of the Arbitral Tribunal’s record that’.）随后《仲裁与调解法》做了相应的修改。

法院注意到在Emkay Global Financial Services Limited v.Girdhar Sondhi (2018) 9 SCC 49一案中，其裁判理由是1996《仲裁与调解法》颁行的理由在于快速解决仲裁纠纷，其修订也是为了增强上述目的。显然，如果要对问题进行界定并根据第34条在简易程序中进行口头举证，则该目标将无法实现。同样可以肯定的是，如果2018年第100号法案获得通过，那么第34条申请阶段的举证要求将被彻底废除。（It will thus be seen that speedy resolution of arbitral disputes has been the reason for enacting the 1996 Act, and continues to be the reason for adding amendments to the said Act to strengthen the aforesaid object. Quite obviously, if issues are to be framed and oral evidence taken in a summary proceeding under Section 34, this object will be defeated. It is also on the cards that if Bill No. 100 of 2018 is passed, then evidence at the stage of a Section 34 application will be dispensed with altogether）。因此，法院认定Fiza Developers是正确的裁判，即在依照第34条（一个简易程序）时，并不需要驳回争议点（issues need not be struck at the stage of hearing a Section 34 application, which is a summary procedure）。

在本案中必须根据第34条第5款和第34条第6款的修正案来理解，即申请撤销仲裁裁决通常不会要求提供仲裁记录以外的任何内容。然而，如果此类记录中未包含某些必要事项以确定是否有第34条第2款第a项有关的事项时，则此类却是事项可以通过双方提交的宣誓书的方式通知到法院。除非绝对必要，否则不允许对宣誓人进行盘问，这是因为通过审阅双方提交的宣誓书后事实就会呈现出来。因此，印度最高法院撤销在德里高等法院的Girdhar Sondhi v. Emkay Global Financial Services Ltd. 2017 SCC OnLineDel 12758案，并且恢复地方法院法官的判决。（However, this judgment must now be read in the light of the amendment made in Sections 34(5) and 34(6). So read, we clarify the legal position by stating that an application for setting aside an arbitral award will not ordinarily require anything beyond the record that was before the arbitrator.However, if there are matters not contained in such record, and are relevant to the determination of issues arising under Section 34(2)(a), they may be brought to the notice of the Court by way of affidavits filed by both parties. Cross-examination of persons swearing to the affidavits should not be allowed unless absolutely necessary, as the truth will emerge on a reading of the affidavits filed by both parties. We, therefore, set aside the judgment in Girdhar Sondhi v. Emkay Global Financial Services Ltd. 2017 SCC OnLine Del12758 of the Delhi High Court and reinstate that of the learned Additional District Judge dated 22-9-2016.）

本案值得考虑的问题是，本案是否属于例外，以至于有必要给第一和第二被申请人机会以提出宣誓书和对证人进行盘问。被申请人提交的宣誓书以及根据《民事诉讼法典》第151条提交的申请书并未表明第一被申请人打算提出什么论点，只是指出第一被申请人打算提出与争议标的有关的其他证据。宣誓书未披露要求出示的具体文件或证据，除非陈述第一被告人打算提供其他证据，否则第一被告人将在其根据该法第34条提起的仲裁诉讼将难以为继。正如为上诉人律师所正确主张的那样，宣誓书中没有关于寻求补充证据的必要性和相关性的具体主张。（The question falling for consideration is whether the present case is such an exceptional circumstance that it was necessary to grant opportunity to respondent Nos.1 and 2 to file affidavits and to cross-examine the witnesses is made out. The affidavit filed by the respondents along with application filed under Section 151 CPC does not indicate as to what point the first respondent intends to adduce except stating that the first respondent intends to adduce additional evidence relating to the subject of dispute. The affidavit does not disclose specific documents or evidence required to be produced except stating that the first respondent intends to adduce additional evidence or otherwise the first respondent will be subjected to hardship in the arbitration suit filed by her under Section 34 of the Act. As rightly contended by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that there are no specific averments in the affidavit as to the necessity and relevance of the additional evidence sought to be adduced.）

通过审阅仲裁裁决，可以看出，有人认为被申请人对仲裁员提交的书面陈述是伪造的，为此双方当事人都有举证。正如地区法官所认为的那样，可以通过仲裁程序中所给出的证据和仲裁裁决来考虑申请的理由（As held by the District Judge, the grounds urged in the application can very well be considered by the evidence adduced in the arbitration proceedings and considering the arbitral award）。此外，第第一和第二被申请人提出的请求给出证据的申请，而没有指出证据的必要性的理由，以及第一和第二被申请人给出举证的性质是什么。《仲裁与调解法》第34条规定的程序是简易程序，不具有常规诉讼的性质。通过在该法案第34条中增加第（5）和（6）款，该法第34条第（5）和（6）款已指定了根据《仲裁与调解法》第34条处理该申请的一年的时效，以避免延误并迅速处理此类申请。而在仲裁程序中，当事人已经有足够的机会提出口头和书面证据。高等法院没有意识到第一和第二被申请人没有指出允许他们在根据《仲裁与调解法》第34条提出的申请中提供证据是例外情况，其指示相当于对仲裁员决定的案情进行重审。（The proceedings under Section 34 of the Act are summary proceedings and is not in the nature of a regular suit. By adding sub-sections (5) and (6) to Section 34 of the Act, the Act has specified the time period of one year for disposal of the application under Section 34 of the Act. The object of sub-sections (5) and (6) to Section 34 fixing time frame to dispose of the matter filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1996 is to avoid delay and to dispose of the application expeditiously and in any event within a period of one year from the date of which the notice referred to in Section 34(5) of the Act is served upon the other party. In the arbitration proceedings, the parties had sufficient opportunity to adduce oral and documentary evidence. The High Court did not keep in view that respondent Nos.1 and 2 have not made out grounds that it is an exceptional case to permit them to adduce evidence in the application under Section 34 of the Act. The said directions of the High Court amount to retrial on the merits of the issues decided by the arbitrator.）

因此撤销高等法院判决，按照地区法院法官的2008年AS第1号（AS No.1 of 2008）决定处理。

三、评论

本案处理的主要问题是申请撤销仲裁裁决时，是否法院只应该审查仲裁记录和仲裁裁决本身，或者当事人可以要求提供新的证据，并对此进行质证以及对证人进行交叉盘问。地方法院认为法院审核仅仅限于仲裁记录和仲裁裁决本身，而高等法院援引印度最高院的Fiza Developers一案，裁定允许。印度最高法院全面审查了FizaDevelopers一案，并指出在该案后《仲裁与调解法》有进行过修订，其内容与Fiza Developers一案已经有不同，而且在Emkay Global Financial Services Limited一案中指出《仲裁与调解法》颁行的理由在于快速解决仲裁纠纷，其修订也是为了增强上述目的。显然，如果要对问题进行界定并根据第34条在简易程序中进行口头举证，则该目标将无法实现，并且新修订的法案中废除了第34条申请阶段的举证要求，因此在确认Fiza Developers一案的裁判正确的基础上，给出了更为细致的判决，即“申请撤销仲裁裁决通常不要求提供仲裁记录以外的任何内容。然而，如果此类记录中未包含某些必要事项以确定是否有第34条第2款第a项有关的事项时，则此类却是事项可以通过双方提交的宣誓书的方式通知到法院。除非绝对必要，否则不允许对宣誓人进行盘问”。在这个层面上，本案发展了印度仲裁法的法理，并且体现了普通法系在裁判过程中的案例区分技巧以在不推翻先例的前提下规避适用先例。