Madras High Court Dismisses Appeal Against Arbitrator Order Refusing Expert Analysis Of iPad Evidence

The Madras High Court has recently dismissed an appeal challenging an arbitrator's refusal to send an iPad marked as evidence for expert analysis, holding that the appeal filed by ADRPlexus Medical Services Pvt Ltd was not maintainable under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, particularly where the request was made after completion of the claimant's evidence.

A Division Bench of Justice P. Velmurugan and Justice K. Govindarajan Thilakavadi held that ADRPlexus Medical Services Pvt Ltd had failed to justify the need for expert examination and had moved the application only after the chief-examination of its witness before the arbitral tribunal.

“During the adjudication proceedings, after completion of chief examination of the appellant's witness/CW1, the appellant thought it fit to file the instant application as an after-thought, when the appellant did not choose to log in the iPad or call upon the respondent to furnish the login details earlier. In spite of sufficient opportunities granted to the appellant to exhibit the contents of the iPad, for the reasons best known to the appellant, the appellant has not utilised the same, and therefore, the sole Arbitrator has rightly dismissed the application,” the Court observed.

The appeal was filed by Chennai-based ADRPlexus Medical Services Pvt Ltd under Section 37(1) and (2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, challenging the interim order dated December 3, 2025 passed by the sole arbitrator dismissing its application to send the iPad marked as evidence for expert opinion.

The dispute arose out of an agreement dated August 23, 2021, between ADRPlexus and Dr Vivekandan K.S., a district psychiatrist based in Salem. ADRPlexus filed the claim petition seeking a direction to Dr Vivekandan K.S. to pay Rs 3,18,86,880 as compensation for alleged unilateral violation and breach of the agreement.

During the arbitral proceedings, company sought to rely on an iPad and filed an application seeking to send the device and its contents for expert opinion to analyse the particulars contained in it. The sole arbitrator dismissed the application, leading to the present appeal before the High Court.

Counsel appearing for ADRPlexus Medical Services Pvt Ltd argued that since the iPad had already been received and marked as Ex.C21, the arbitrator erred in rejecting the request for expert examination on the ground that the contents had not been demonstrated earlier and that expert opinion was necessary to establish the material stored in the device.

Opposing the appeal, counsel for the doctor. submitted that company had failed to produce or rely on the iPad at the stage of filing the claim petition or during the chief-examination of its witness, and was attempting to fill lacunae in its evidence. It was also argued that the appeal itself was not maintainable under Section 37 against an order refusing to refer the iPad for expert opinion.

Agreeing with the objections, the High Court noted that the arbitrator had recorded that the company failed to show why expert analysis was required.

“The learned Arbitrator clearly observed that the appellant has not satisfied that the materials contained in the iPad are beyond the understanding of an ordinary person and require some expertise in the field and the affidavit filed in support of the application also lacks the reasoning for such necessity. The appellant has also not pleaded as to how the study materials or software stored in the iPad were shared by the respondent to the rival coaching centre or that the possession of the iPad by the appellant is not accessible,” the bench said.

The court held that company had been given sufficient opportunity during the evidentiary stage but failed to utilize it, and therefore no interference with the arbitral order was warranted.

“Therefore, this Court does not find any error apparent on the face of the record or perversity in the order of the sole Arbitrator and that the present appeal itself is not maintainable under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,” the Bench held.

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the company was dismissed

For petitioner (ADRPlexus Medical Services Pvt Ltd): Advocate S Manimegalai

For respondent (Dr Vivekandan K S): Advocate R N Amarnath