In Alka Chandewar, the Bombay High Court held that Section 27(5) had to be read in the context of the entirety of Section 27 and not in isolation, and was confined to violation by a party “in respect of taking evidence”. The Supreme Court disagreed with the limited reading of Section 27(5) by the High Court, and held that “any contempt to the Arbitral Tribunal” would fall “within its ken”.
A conjoint reading of Sections 17(2), 27(5) and paragraphs 6, 7, and 9 of Alka Chandewar will reveal that any other order, other than one passed by an arbitral tribunal under Section 17, can be enforced provided the arbitral tribunal follows the mandate of Section 27(5) of the Arbitration Act. Seen in this light, there are two distinct methods of enforcing an order of an arbitral tribunal under the Arbitration Act –
(i) an order passed under Section 17 can be enforced directly by an aggrieved party in court as if it were any order of the court; and
(ii) an order other than one passed by the arbitral tribunal under Section 17, can only be enforced by the arbitral tribunal by making a representation to court for contempt of its order.
Source: Barandbench
