In breach of this order, it is alleged that on 14th October, 2010 the respondent in fact transferred five such flats.
By the order passed on 22 nd March, 2012, it was held by the learned Arbitrator that the order of 7th October, 2010 had, in fact, been breached by the respondent and certain other interim directions were made by the aforesaid order.
In the judgment under appeal, the High Court held In view of the above discussion, Section 27 5 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 does number empower the Tribunal to make representation to the Court for companytempt if the orders including the interim orders passed by the Arbitrator except in respect of taking evidence are violated by the party.
The Contempt Petition being the representation made by the Tribunal is beyond the period of limitation and is number maintainable in law.
Ultimately, by an order dated 5th May, 2014, the learned Arbitrator referred the aforesaid companytempt of the order dated 7th October, 2010 to the High Court to pass necessary orders thereon under Section 27 5 of the Act.
F. NARIMAN, J. Leave granted.
The present appeal arises from the judgment of the Bombay High Court dated 27th October, 2015, in which the High Court has companystrued Section 27 5 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 hereinafter referred to as the Act in a somewhat restrictive manner.
The facts necessary to appreciate the point involved in this appeal are that on 7th October, 2010, the sole Arbitrator appointed by the parties passed an interim order under Section 17 of the said Act, in which it was mentioned that numberfurther Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by USHA RANI BHARDWAJ Date 2017.07.15 124444 IST Reason flats were to be disposed of without the leave of the Arbitral Tribunal.
