Dtc vs Tata Motors Ltd
2014 Latest Caselaw 6574 Del

      * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+                                 O.M.P. 805/2014
%                         Judgement pronounced on: 08.12.2014

      DTC                                                  ..... Petitioner
                         Through: Mrs Avnish Ahlawat, Advocate

                         versus

      TATA MOTORS LTD                                     ..... Respondent
                  Through: None.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA

JUDGMENT (ORAL)

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 27 of the Arbitration

and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). From the

bare reading of the Section, it is apparent that this Court can be approached

for assistance for issuance of summon, etc. for procuring the attendance of

the witnesses by any party to arbitral proceedings with the approval of the

Arbitral Tribunal.

2. The petitioner has filed the present petitioner for issuance of the

notice and direction to Indraprastha Gas Limited, IGL Bhawan, Plot No.4,

Community Centre, R.K. Puram, Sector-9 to depute a senior technical

officer to depose before the Arbitral Tribunal on 27.08.2014.

3. It is also submitted on behalf of the petitioner that now the date fixed

before the Tribunal is 13.12.2014. No copy of the order has been placed on

record. The petitioner has relied on the order of the Arbitral Tribunal dated

03.07.2014 and argued that vide this order, the Arbitral Tribunal has given

the approval to the petitioner to approach this Court.

4. The petitioner has approached this Court under Section 27 of the Act,

which is, to the extent it is relevant, reproduced as under:-

"27. Court assistance in taking evidence: (1) The arbitral tribunal, or a party with the approval of the arbitral tribunal, may apply to the court for assistance in taking evidence."

5. The requirement of the said Section is that this Court can be

approached only with the approval of the Arbitral Tribunal. It is argued by

the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Arbitral Tribunal has vide its

order dated 03.07.2014 has granted the permission to seek the assistance of

this Court in securing the attendance of the witness. I have gone through the

relevant order of the Arbitral Tribunal. There is nothing in the order which

can suggest even remotely that any permission has been given to the

petitioner to seek the assistance of this Court in securing the attendance of

the witness. The last paragraph of the order shows otherwise. This order

clearly shows that Arbitral Tribunal has itself summoned the relevant

witness.

6. In view of this, it is apparent that the petitioner has no permission of

the Arbitral Tribunal to approach this Court under Section 27 of the Act.

The petition, therefore, is not maintainable and the same is dismissed.

Dasti.

DEEPA SHARMA (JUDGE) DECEMBER 08, 2014 BG