Breaking Supreme Court Legal Update
New Delhi · Thursday, 06 August 2026 9888666310 | [email protected]
Free Law — free judgments and free headnotes Free Lawby De Jure
Supreme Court of India 2019-09-23 allowed

M/S. CANARA NIDHI LIMITED vs M. SHASHIKALA

Bench: 2 — R. Banumathi, A.S. Bopanna

In Brief

Canara Nidhi Limited advanced a loan to M. Shashikala, who failed to repay. The dispute went to arbitration. The arbitrator awarded Rs. 63,82,802/- in favor of the lender. Shashikala sought to set aside the award under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1996, requesting permission to file fresh affidavit evidence. The High Court allowed her request; the Supreme Court disagreed. It held that Section 34 proceedings are summary in nature, and fresh evidence is ordinarily not required beyond the arbitration record. The Court allowed the appeal, affirmed the District Judge's refusal to permit additional evidence, and directed expeditious disposal of the underlying arbitration application.

The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.

Arbitration Section 34 Arbitration Act Arbitral Award Evidence Summary Proceedings Judicial Review Supervisory Jurisdiction

Read the full judgment & headnote. It's free.

Register to read the complete Supreme Court judgment text and the headnote, and to search 1 lakh+ Supreme Court judgments by meaning. It is a free service.

Register Free Login