R.F. NARIMAN, J.:–

Leave granted.

2. The present appeal arises from the judgment of the Bombay High Court dated 27th October, 2015, in which the High Court has construed 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 no further flats were to be disposed of without the leave of the Arbitral Tribunal. 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 22nd 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. Ultimately, by an order dated 5th May, 2014, the learned Arbitrator referred the aforesaid contempt of the order dated 7th October, 2010 to the High Court to pass necessary orders thereon under Section 27(5) of the Act.

3. In the jud