LAWS(BOM)-2012-7-131

UNITED SPIRITS LIMITED Vs. DELTA DISTILLERIES LIMITED

Decided On July 20, 2012
UNITED SPIRITS LIMITED Appellant
V/S
DELTA DISTILLERIES LIMITED Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An important question as to whether this Court can exercise its powers under Section 27 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for implementation of the Orders passed by the learned Arbitrators, which are not being complied with by the parties, arises for consideration before this Court.

(2.) The facts in brief necessary for adjudication of the present Petition are as under :

(3.) Shri Shiraz Rustomjee, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submits that the provisions of Section 27 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred as "the Act" for short) are aimed at providing assistance to the Court for effective adjudication in the arbitration proceedings. He submits that the Court has ample powers under Section 27 of the Act to direct a party or a witness to either give evidence before the Arbitral Tribunal or to produce documents before the Arbitral Tribunal. He submits that the conduct of the Respondent is such which amounts to defying the orders passed by the Arbitral Tribunal. He further submits that not only that but the Respondent has now come with a totally contrary stand than the one which was taken by him before the Arbitral Tribunal. He submits that though it was never a case of the Respondent that the Assessment Orders were not available with it, but now in an Affidavit filed in the present proceedings a stand is taken that the Assessment Orders are not available with the Respondent. He, therefore, submits that this is a fit case wherein this Court should not only exercise the powers under sub section 3 of Section 27 of the Act read with Rule 14 of Order 11 of the Code to issue directions to the Respondents to produce the documents as directed by the learned Tribunal but also invoke the powers under sub section 5 of Section 27 of initiating contempt proceedings against the Respondents for having committed a contempt of the Arbitral Tribunal.