LexDELTA DISTILLERIES LIMITED versus UNITED SPIRITS LIMITED & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2013] 9 S.C.R. 573 DELTA DISTILLERIES LIMITED v. UNITED SPIRITS LIMITED & ANR. (Civil Appeal No. 8426 of 2013) SEPTEMBER 23, 2013 [A.K. PATNAIK AND H.L. GOKHALE, JJ.] ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996: A B s. 27 rlw s. 25 - Petition for seeking court assistance in c taking evidence - Claim regarding set-off/refund pertaining to sales tax - Prayer by respondent seeking to produce assessment orders relating to appellant - Held: Arbitrator I Arbitra/ Tribunal is required to make an. award on merits of the claim placed before it - For that purpose, if any evidence D becomes necessary, Tribunal ought to have power to get the evidence and it is for this purpose only that the enabling provision in s.27 has been made - If a claim is to be decided on the basis of an order of assessment, claimant cannot be denied the right to seek a direction to party concerned to E produce the assessment order - High Court rightly directed the appellant to produce the documents which were sought by first respondent - Arbitration Act, 1940 - s.43. Interpretation of statutes: F Construing of a statutory provision - Held: Words used in a statute are to be read as they are used, to the extent possible, to ascertain the meaning thereof - s. 71 of Maharashtra Value Added Tax, 2002 and s. 64 of Bombay Sa/es Tax Act, contain a bar only against Government officers G from producing the documents mentioned therein - There is no bar therein against a party to produce any such document - Maharashtra Value Added Tax, 2002 - s. 71 - Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 - s.64. 573 H 574 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 9 S.C.R. A The appellant, in terms of an agreement, manufactured and supplied to respondent no. 1 certain brands of Indian Made Foreign Liquor. The contract price at which the IMFL was to be sold by the appellant to respondent No.1, was exclusive of sales tax and other B taxes, and latter was required to bear the same. The dispute, whic.h was referred to arbitration, arose between the parties regarding set-off/refund obtained by the appellant from the Sales Tax Department on the sales tax paid on packaging material, and such set-off/refund C operated to reduce the sales tax liability of the appellant, which was ultimately being borne by respondent No.1. The Arbitral Tribunal granted permission to respondent no. 1 to apply to court for production of the relevant assessment orders from the appellant and/or the Sales 0 Tax Authorities. Accordingly, respondent No.1 filed an arbitration petition u/s. 27 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The single Judge of the High Court allowed the petition and directed the appellant to produce the documents sought for. E Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. Section 27(2)(c) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 does provide that an application under this section seeking assistance of the court shall F specify the name and address of any person to be heard as a witness or as an expert witness. As far as the appearance of a party in pursuance to a notice of the arbitrator is concerned, s. 25 (c) provides that in the event a party fails to appear at an oral hearing or to produce G documentary evidence, the arbitral tribunal may continue the proceedings, and make the arbitral award on the evidence before it. This evidence can be sought either from any third person or from a party to the proceeding itself. The substitution of the phrase "parties and witnesses" u/ s. 43 of the earlier Act by the phrase 'any person' in s.27 H DELTA DISTILLERIES LIMITED v. UNITED SPIRITS 575 LIMITED cannot make any difference. It is an enabling provision A and has to be read as such. The term 'any person' appearing in 27 (2) (c) is wide enough to cover not merely the witnesses, but also the parties to the proceeding. It is undoubtedly clear that if a party fails to appear before the Arbitral Tribunal, it can proceed ex-parte, as provided ul B s. 25 (c). At the same time, it cannot be ignored that the Tribunal is required to make an award on merits of the claim placed before it. For that purpose, if any evidence becomes necessary, the Tribunal ought to have the power to get the evidence, and it is for this purpose only that c enabling provision in s.27 has been provided. [Para 18-19] [586-G-H; 587-A; 588-F-H; 589-A-C] Union of India v. Bhatia Tanning Industries AIR 1986 Delhi 195 - referred to. D 1.2. To draw an adverse
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.