Summary
Section 27(5) permitted a court, on the arbitral tribunal’s representation, to address contempt of its interim orders and was not confined to defaults in taking evidence. The Court reversed the restrictive interpretation and remanded the alleged breach for factual decision, without itself finding contempt proved.
Issues
- Whether Section 27(5) covered breach of an arbitral interim order beyond evidence-taking defaults.
Provisions considered
- Sections 17 and 27(5), Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996The broad statutory language supplied court-backed sanctions on a tribunal’s representation for contempt during arbitral proceedings, including disobedience of interim orders. (¶ 6–8)
- Section 17(2), introduced in 2015, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996The later direct-enforcement mechanism provided a fuller solution; it did not negate the earlier Section 27(5) route. (¶ 9–10)
Held
- The distinct phrases concerning other defaults and any contempt during arbitral proceedings could not be cut down by the evidence-assistance marginal note. The plain language and statutory purpose protected the efficacy of Section 17 interim measures. (¶ 7–8)
- The 2015 amendment made tribunal orders enforceable as court orders without repeatedly requiring contempt representations. Its enactment did not support treating prior interim orders as unenforceable. (¶ 9–10)
Result
Appeal allowed; Bombay High Court judgment set aside. Alleged contempt remanded for decision on facts, with the respondent free to deny having committed contempt.