Bombay High Court Allows Section 27 Petition for Witness Summons in Arbitration — Petitioner Seeks Production of Documents from Third Parties to Prove Claims. Court held that documents sought were relevant and necessary for adjudication of disputes between the parties under Section 27 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY In Favour of Prosecution
  • 138
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner, Montana Developers Private Limited, filed a petition under Section 27 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking an order for issuance of witness summons against various persons/entities to produce documents before the learned arbitrator. The petitioner was the claimant in the arbitration proceedings, and the respondents were the original respondents. By consent of parties, a former Chief Justice of India was appointed as sole arbitrator on 17th September 2013 and 1st October 2013. The petitioner filed a statement of claim on 30th November 2013. The respondents filed their statement of defence. The petitioner sought production of documents from third parties, including bank statements, property records, and other financial documents, to support its claims. The court considered the relevance and necessity of the documents and allowed the petition, directing the issuance of witness summons and production of documents as prayed, subject to the arbitrator's discretion to exclude irrelevant documents.

Headnote

A) Arbitration - Witness Summons - Section 27 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Court allowed petition seeking issuance of witness summons to various persons/entities for production of documents before the arbitrator - Held that the documents sought were relevant and necessary for adjudication of disputes between the parties (Paras 1-5).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the court should issue witness summons and direct production of documents under Section 27 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, at the request of the petitioner in an ongoing arbitration.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

Petition allowed. Court directs issuance of witness summons to the persons/entities named in the petition to produce the documents as prayed before the learned arbitrator on 11th July 2016 at 11:00 a.m. The arbitrator may exclude any document found irrelevant.

Law Points

  • Section 27 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act
  • 1996 empowers the court to issue witness summons and order production of documents for arbitration proceedings
  • provided the applicant demonstrates relevance and necessity of the documents for adjudication of disputes between the parties.
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2016 LawText (BOM) (06) 71

Arbitration Petition (Lodging) No. 680 of 2016

2016-06-22

R.D. Dhanuka, J.

Mr. Virag Tulzapurkar, Senior Counsel with Mr. Farid Karachiwala and Mr. Sahil Sayed i/b M/s. Wadia Ghandy & Co. for the Petitioner. Mr. Pradeep Sancheti, Senior Counsel with Dr. Birendra Saraf, Ms. Pooja Kshirsagar, Mr. Yogesh Adhia and Mr. Anand Chovatia i/b Mr. Yogesh Adhia for the Respondents.

Montana Developers Private Limited

Aditya Developers, Shri Binal S. Koradia, Shri Binal S. Koradia HUF, Smt. Amisha Binal Koradia, Shri Arvind Shamji Chedda, Shri Jayant Shamji Chedda, Shri Manish Mulchand Chedda, Ms. Heena Parag Chedda

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Petition under Section 27 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking issuance of witness summons and production of documents in ongoing arbitration proceedings.

Remedy Sought

Petitioner seeks an order for issuance of witness summons against various persons/entities to produce documents before the learned arbitrator.

Filing Reason

Petitioner requires documents from third parties to prove its claims in the arbitration.

Previous Decisions

Arbitrator appointed by consent on 17th September 2013 and 1st October 2013; statement of claim filed on 30th November 2013; statement of defence filed by respondents.

Issues

Whether the court should issue witness summons and direct production of documents under Section 27 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner argued that the documents sought are relevant and necessary for adjudication of disputes. Respondents opposed the petition on grounds of relevance and burden.

Ratio Decidendi

Under Section 27 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the court has the power to issue witness summons and order production of documents for arbitration proceedings if the documents sought are relevant and necessary for adjudication of disputes between the parties.

Judgment Excerpts

By this petition filed under section 27 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short the 'Arbitration Act') the petitioner seeks an order and direction for issuance of witness summons against various persons / entities with a direction to produce various documents set out in prayer clauses (a) and (b) of the petition before the learned arbitrator on 11th July, 2016 at 11:00 a.m.

Procedural History

Petitioner filed Arbitration Petition (Lodging) No. 680 of 2016 under Section 27 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The petition was heard by the High Court of Bombay on 22nd June 2016 and allowed.

Acts & Sections

  • Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: Section 27
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Section 27 Petition for Witness Summons in Arbitration — Petitioner Seeks Production of Documents from Third Parties to Prove Claims. Court held that documents sought were relevant and necessary for adjudication of disputes...
Related Judgement
High Court Karnataka High Court Quashes Assistant Commissioner's Order to Reconsider Appeal in Land Mutation Dispute — Lack of Jurisdiction to Review Own Order. The Court held that the Assistant Commissioner had no power to review or reconsider his own appell...