JUDGEMENT
R.F. Nariman, J. -
(1.)Leave granted.
(2.)The present appeal arises from the judgment of the Bombay High Court dated 27th Oct., 2015, in which the High Court has construed Sec. 27(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") in a somewhat restrictive manner. The facts necessary to appreciate the point involved in this appeal are that on 7th Oct., 2010, the sole Arbitrator appointed by the parties passed an interim order under Sec. 17 of the said Act, in which it was mentioned that no further flats were to be disposed of without the leave of the Arbitral Tribunal. In breach of this order, it is alleged that on 14th Oct., 2010 the respondent in fact transferred five such flats. By the order passed on 22nd March, 2012, it was held by the learned Arbitrator that the order of 7th Oct., 2010 had, in fact, been breached by the respondent and certain other interim directions were made by the aforesaid order. Ultimately, by an order dated 5th May, 2014, the learned Arbitrator referred the aforesaid contempt of the order dated 7th Oct., 2010 to the High Court to pass necessary orders thereon under Sec. 27(5) of the Act.
(3.)In the judgment under appeal, the High Court held:
"In view of the above discussion, Sec. 27(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 does not empower the Tribunal to make representation to the Court for contempt if the orders including the interim orders passed by the Arbitrator except in respect of taking evidence are violated by the party. The Contempt Petition being the representation made by the Tribunal is beyond the period of limitation and is not maintainable in law. Moreover, the final award of Rs. 8 crores is granted in favour of the petitioner by the Arbitrator."
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.