1.
Introduction
“Hi everyone, I’m Parth Garg, and today I’ll be talking about an important case related to
arbitration—Fiza Developers and Inter-Trade Pvt. Ltd. vs. AMCI (India) Pvt. Ltd. This case is really
significant because it helps us understand how courts should deal with challenges to arbitration
awards, especially under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The main
question in this case was whether courts need to frame issues in these kinds of arbitration
matters—just like they do in regular civil cases under the Civil Procedure Code.”
2. Facts of the Case
“So, here’s what happened. Fiza Developers and AMCI had a commercial agreement. Some
dispute came up between them, and they went for arbitration—like their contract had said. The
arbitrator gave an award in 2005, asking Fiza Developers to pay a large amount to AMCI—over 57
crores.
But Fiza Developers weren’t happy with the award. So they filed an application under Section 34
to get the award set aside. Along with that, they asked the court to frame formal ‘issues,’ like in a
civil suit. However, the civil court said no—this isn’t a regular suit, so no need to frame issues.
They challenged this in the High Court and eventually in the Supreme Court.”
3. Legal Provisions Involved
“This case mainly dealt with three things:
• Section 34 of the Arbitration Act—this lets you challenge an arbitral award,
but only on limited grounds like misconduct, bias, or violation of public policy.
• Order XIV Rule 1 of the CPC—this is about framing issues when there’s a
dispute on facts or law.
• And Karnataka High Court Arbitration Rules, which say Section 34
applications can be registered as suits—but also mention that CPC rules apply only
if necessary.”
4. Appellant’s Arguments (Fiza Developers)
“Fiza Developers said that once AMCI opposed the application, the case became adversarial. So,
to make things clear, issues should be framed. They believed this would help in organizing the
evidence and making the process more fair and structured. They also relied on the Karnataka
High Court Rules and said those rules support treating these applications like regular suits.”
5. Respondent’s Arguments (AMCI)
“AMCI had a different view. They said these Section 34 proceedings are supposed to be quick
and summary in nature. There’s no need to go into detailed procedures like in a full civil trial.
They also pointed out that the law already lists out specific grounds for challenging an award—so
why waste time framing more issues?”
6. Judgment
“The Supreme Court agreed with AMCI. It said that Section 34 cases are not full-blown civil trials
—they’re meant to be quick and limited to very specific grounds. So, no need to frame issues like
in regular suits. The court also said that while parties can submit evidence and even cross-
examine if needed, the overall approach should still be summary and efficient. And just because
the Karnataka rules say ‘arbitration suit,’ that doesn’t mean you apply all civil suit rules.”
7. Conclusion
“To wrap up, this case is a landmark because it clarified that Section 34 proceedings are not like
regular civil cases. The goal is to respect the spirit of arbitration—quick resolution with limited
court involvement. The Supreme Court’s ruling ensures that arbitration remains a useful and
efficient alternative to traditional litigation.”
