Arbitral Tribunal Is The Fulcrum And The Facilitator For Taking Evidence Under Section 27 Of Arbitration And Conciliation Act: Telangana High Court

The Telangana High Court division bench of Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Justice M.G. Priyadarshini, while dismissing a Civil Revision Petition (CRP), has held that the Arbitral Tribunal is the fulcrum and the facilitator under Section 27 of the Arbitration Act. The Bench further held that only Arbitral Tribunal can make a representation before a Court under Section 27(5). Section 27 of the Arbitration Act pertains to the assistance of the Court in taking evidence. The Arbitral Tribunal, or a party with the prior permission of the Tribunal may move an application seeking the Court's assistance. Facts: The Arbitral Tribunal by an order dated 07th April 2024 permitted the petitioner to approach the Principal Special Court at Hyderabad under Section 27 of the Arbitration Act. The application was moved seeking the assistance of the court in recording evidence. In same order, the arbitral tribunal directed the entire proceedings to be completed within 1 month from the date of filing of the Application in view of the time limit fixed by the Supreme Court. The learned trial court judge considered the Bailiff of the District and Sessions Court report, where both the witnesses were not present on the returnable date. The trial court accordingly disposed of the application by recording that the evidence could not be taken and directed the court's office to re-submit the record to the Arbitral Tribunal. The petitioner, being aggrieved, filed the (CRP), against the impugned order passed under Section 27 of the Arbitration Act, seeking to issue summons to the witnesses in conformity with the order passed by the Arbitral Tribunal on 07th April 2024. Submissions by the Parties: The petitioner made the following submissions:The Court should have appropriate directions under Order XVI Rule 10 of the CPC. The Court had a duty to secure the presence of the 2 witnesses and do complete justice, in which it failed. The present case, therefore, is fit for revision of the order passed by the trial court. The respondent made the following submissions: The maintainability of the CRP, the lack of diligence and the failure of the revision petitioner to seek further extension of time for completion of the arbitral proceedings was called into question. Analysis of the Court: The Bench observed that Section 27(5) pertains to the filing a representation by the Arbitral Tribunal to the Court seeking assistance in recording evidence of the person who either fails to attend the proceedings or refuses to give evidence despite receiving the summons. Order XVI Rule 10 of the CPC is attracted when the Court issuing process to witnesses or punishing for disobedience. The language of Section 27 contemplates the Arbitral Tribunal as the central piece for initiating the process of taking evidence. The tribunal must take the first step when making representation to the Court for assistance in taking evidence or granting approval to a party to do the same, as mentioned in 27 (1). Under Section 27 (3), the tribunal becomes the repository of the evidence ordered by the Court. The tribunal is the authoritative entity concerning the default or refusal of persons to give evidence despite being summoned or being guilty of any contempt of any direction given by the tribunal during the conduct of the arbitral proceedings. The continuous chain through Section 27 is the act of the tribunal seeking representation to the Court for recording evidence or production of documents. In brevity, Section 27 stipulates filling the void in the Arbitration Act concerning the Arbitrator's power to conduct the proceedings. Only the Arbitral Tribunal under Section 27(5) can initiate a complaint in the form of a representation to the Court. This power given to the tribunal to make a representation is clear from the language of the Statute where the word 'party' is omitted. The CRP file against the impugned praying to set aside the order of the trial is misconceived, and there is no statutory basis. Therefore, the Court held the CRP to be devoid of any merit and dismissed the same. Case Title: V. Sreenivas Reddy v. B.L. Rathnamma Case Number: CRP/2401/2024 Click Here To Read/Download Order

Arbitral Tribunal Is The Fulcrum And The Facilitator For Taking Evidence Under Section 27 Of Arbitration And Conciliation Act: Telangana High Court

Mohd Talha Hasan

Tags