Analysis of Section 27 of the Arbitration and conciliation act
Section 27 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 ("Arbitration Act") establishes a mechanism by which the arbitral tribunal or a party to the dispute (approved by the arbitral tribunal) may request legal assistance to obtain evidence. Interestingly, this is "One of the few clauses of the Arbitration Law that allows the court to intervene/assist in arbitration proceedings governed by the Arbitration Law.
However, the scope of judicial intervention under this clause remains a controversial issue and has been the subject of various judicial decisions. This section will attempt to clarify the ambiguity of this issue by analyzing some important judgments handed down by courts at all levels in this regard, and give a clear explanation of judicial discretion under section 27 of the Arbitration Act
Judicial statement on the discretion of the tribunal under Section 27 of the Arbitration Act
In Ennore Port Limited v. Hindustan Construction Co., Ltd. ("Ennore Ports"), Madras High Court of Justice, although it recognizes (and exercises) the court's discretion to rule on the application under Section 27 of the Arbitration Law, it considers such exercise of discretion The right should not be automatic, and a balance must be struck between the exercise of this discretionary power and the importance of minimal judicial intervention under Section 5 of the Arbitration Law.
The Supreme Court of India (“SC”) in Delta Distilleries Ltd. v. United Spirits Ltd. (“Delta Distilleries”) held that the objection that the arbitral tribunal approved an order allowing the defendant to apply to Section 27 could not be approved was unfounded. It believes that the arbitral tribunal must make an award on the merits of the claim that has been submitted to it. For this reason, if any evidence is needed, the arbitral tribunal must have the right to obtain evidence, and if it cannot obtain it on its own, it can be obtained through the authorization clause, that is, Section 27 requires the court to assist in obtaining evidence. However, the SC did not exercise the power of the court at the time of judgment under Section 27, nor did it interfere with the order of a single academic judge who only ordered the defendant not. 1 In response to the request made by the opposing party in an application filed under Section 27, documents shall be submitted in place of the two defendants. This reflects the position established in Ennore Ports that the court should not automatically approve the order. Once a request is made under Section 27, you should decide for yourself when ordering or rejecting such a request.
Analysis and Conclusions
A careful reading of the previous higher court rulings and the SC's decision on Delta Distilleries clearly indicates that the courts have minimal discretion when considering requests under Section 27 of the Arbitration Act. The above ruling clearly stipulates that the tribunal will not interfere with the order of the arbitral tribunal to approve the application of Section 27 of the Arbitration Law by one of the parties because this is beyond the power of the tribunal.
However, this does not mean that the arbitral tribunal can continue to grant such approval, even if no reason is given for such approval based on the facts and circumstances of the case.
(This Article Does Not Intend To Hurt The Sentiments Of Any Individual Community, Sect, or Religion, Etcetera. This Article Is Based Purely On The Authors Personal Views And Opinions In The Exercise Of The Fundamental Right Guaranteed Under Article 19(1)(A) And Other Related Laws Being Force In India, For The Time Being. Further, despite all efforts made to ensure the accuracy and correctness of the information published, White Code VIA Mediation and Arbitration Centre Foundation shall not be responsible for any errors caused due to human error or otherwise.)