ALKA CHANDEWAR versus SHAMSHUL ISHRAR KHAN

Citation: [2017] 6 S.C.R. 533 · Decided: 06-07-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.F. NARIMAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2017] 6 S.C.R. 533 
ALKA CHANDEWAR 
v. 
SHAMSHUL TSHRAR KHAN 
(Civil Appeal No. 8720 of 2017) 
JULY06, 2017 
[R. F. NARIMAN AND SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, JJ.] 
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - ss. 2 7 (5) and 17 (2) 
A 
B 
- Courts power to punish for contempt of orders made by Arbitral 
tribunal - Scope and ambit of - Held: Section 27(5) specifically C 
states that persons guilty of any contempt to the arbitral tribunal 
during the conduct of the arbitral proceedings is within its ken -
Entire object of providing that a party may approach the arbitral 
tribunal instead of the Court for interim reliefs would be stultified if 
interim orders passed by such tribunal are toothless - It is to give 
teeth to such orders that an express provision is made in s. 27(5) -
D 
More so, s. 17(2) was added, so that the cumbersome procedure of 
arbitral tribunal having to apply every time to the High Court for 
contempt of its orders would no longer be necessmy - On facts, the 
order passed by the High Court that s.27(5) does not empower the 
arbitral tribunal to make representation to the court for contempt 
E 
of the orders including interim order unless they are in respect of 
taking evidence, set aside - Matter remanded back to decide the 
alleged .contempt on facts. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 On reading Section 27(5) of the Arbitration 
F 
and Conciliation Act, 1996 literally, persons failing to attend in 
accordance with the court process fall under a separate category 
from "any other default". Further, the Section is not confined to 
a person being guilty of contempt only when failing to attend in 
accordance with such process. The Section specifically states that 
persons guilty of any contempt to the Arbitral Tribunal during G 
the conduct of the Arbitral proceedings is within its ken. The 
said language is, in fact, in consonance with the Chapter heading 
of Chapter V, "Conduct of arbitral proceedings". Further, it is 
well settled that a marginal note can be used as an internal aid to 
533 
H 
534 
A 
B 
c 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 6 S.C.R. 
interpretation of sta'tutes only in order to show what is the general 
drift of the section. It may also be resorted to when the plain 
meaning of the section is not clear. In the instant case, the plain 
meaning of sub-section (5) is resorted to. This being the case, it 
is difficult to appreciate the reasoning of the High Court. Also, in 
consonance with the modern rule of interpretation of statutes, 
the entire object of providing that a party may approach the 
Arbitral Tribunal instead of the C9urt for interim reliefs would 
be stultified if interim orders passed by such Tribunal are 
toothless. It is to give teeth to such orders that an express 
provision is made in Section 27(5) of the Act. [Para 7) [539-E-G) 
1.2 Sub-section(2) to Section 17 was added by the 
Amendment Act 2015, so that the cumbersome procedure of an 
Arbitral Tribunal having to apply every time to the High Court 
for contempt of its orders would no longer be necessary. Such 
orders would now be deemed to be orders of the Court for all 
D purposes and would be enforced under the Civil Procedure Code, 
1908 in the same manner as if they Were orders of the Court. 
The submission that sub-section (2) of section 17 introduced by 
the 2015 Amendment Act now provides for the necessary remedy 
against infraction of interim orders by tribunal is of no substance 
E 
F 
G 
H 
in view of the fact that Section 17(2) was enacted for the purpose 
of providing a "complete solution" to the problem. [Para 10) 
[541-F-G] 
1.3 The judgment of the High Court is set aside. The 
matter is remanded to decide the alleged contempt on facts. 
[Para 11] [542-A-B) 
Maruti Udyog Limited v. Mahinder C Mehta & Ors 
[2007) 10 SCR 933: 2007 (13) SCC 220; Mis Ambalal 
Sarabhai Enterprises v. Mis Amrit Lal & Co. & Anr. 
[20011 2 Suppl. scR 195 : (2001) s sec 397 -
referred to. 
[2007] 10 SCR 933 
Case Law Reference 
referred to 
[2001] 2 Suppl. SCR 195 
referred to 
Para4 
Paras 
ALKA CHANDEWAR v. SHAMSHUL ISHRAR KHAN 
535 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.8720 
A 
of 2017. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 27.10.2015 of the High 
Court ofJudicature at Bombay in Contempt Petition No.102 of2015. 
B. H. Marlapalle, Sr. Adv. S. Y. Chi tale, Abhijat P. Medh, Advs. 
for the Appellant. 
Rana Mukherjee, Sr. Adv., Partha Sil, Tavish B. Prasad, 
Ms. Subhoshree Sil, Advs. for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Cou

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.