A complaint/action under Section 27(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 can only be initiated by an Arbitral Tribunal – V.Sreenivas Reddy Vs. B.L. Rathnamma – Telangana High Court
The division Bench of Telangana High Court held that:
(i) The Court can invoke its discretionary powers under Order XVI Rule 10 of the CPC only after the disobedience/failure of the summoned persons is brought to the Court’s notice under section 27(5) of the 1996 Act.
(ii) Section 27 of the 1996 Act is an enabler or Court assistance for taking evidence while Order XVI Rule 10 gives the necessary statutory muscle to ensure recording of evidence by the Arbitral Tribunal.
(iii) Section 27 (5) contemplates such a complaint/action only being initiated by the Arbitral Tribunal in the form of a representation to the Court. The exclusivity given to the Arbitral Tribunal to make such a representation would be clear from the language of section 27(5) omitting the party to make such a representation.
(iv) Section 27(5) may be contrasted with section 27(1) where either the Arbitral Tribunal or a party (with the approval of the Arbitral Tribunal) may apply to the Court for assistance in taking evidence.
