ORDER :

1. This proceeding is filed under 27 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short “the Act”) which provides for the Court’s assistance in taking evidence by enabling the arbitral tribunal or a party with the approval of the tribunal to apply to the Court for assistance in taking evidence.

2. In the present case, an application came to be made by the petitioner/original respondent before the arbitral tribunal, to examine one Mr. Anil Jaiswal as a witness in the arbitral proceeding. Such application of the petitioner was opposed by the respondent by filing a reply. On such backdrop, the arbitral tribunal heard the parties and by a detailed order dated 11 January, 2021 has come to a conclusion, that allowing the petitioner to lead evidence of such witness would certainly not cause any prejudice to the respondent. The arbitral tribunal also observed that the evidence of such witness, as intended to be examined by the petitioner, would be material and not altogether a waste of time, as was urged on behalf of the respondent-claimant. A perusal of the said order passed by the tribunal clearly indicates that all objections of the respondent in that regard were considered by the arbitral tribunal and were rejected, as not relevant. Accordingly, on such approval being granted by the arbitral tribunal to examine such witness, the petitioner/original respondent has filed this petition under section 27 of the Act praying that this Court issues a witness summons to Mr. Anil Jaiswal.

3. Mr. Saraogi, learned counsel for the petitioner has reiterated the case of the petitioner as placed before the tribunal pointing out the necessity for the petitioner to examine such witness. He has drawn the Court’s attention to the relevant paragraphs of the order dated 11 January, 2021 passed by the arbitral tribunal to submit that the arbitral tribunal in granting its seal of approval in permitting the petitioner to examine the said witness has considered the merits of the petitioner’s contentions as also the opposition of the respondents. He submits that in the circumstances, the petition is required to be allowed by issuance of a witness summons to the said witness.

4. On the other hand, Mr. Rebello, learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the respondent has an objection to the order dated 11 January, 2021 passed by the tribunal permitting examination of such witness. He would submit that although the tribunal has approved that such witness needs to be examined, he, however, submits that this Court also needs to consider whether the tribunal was correct in coming to a conclusion that such a witness ought to be examined. In support of his contention, Mr. Rebello has placed reliance on the decision of Delhi High Court in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. vs. Ashok Kumar Garg, 2006 (91) DRJ 591 to submit that once a tribunal takes a prima facie view that a witness can be examined by a party, however even then, the final decision whether a witness summons ought to be issued to the concerned witness is required to be taken by the Court, applying the provisions of Order 16 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. He submits that the respondent had put up a case that such witness cannot be examined by the petitioner, although it is not accepted by the tribunal. According to him, the correctness of the reasons as set out by the arbitral tribunal can certainly be scrutinized by the Court, akin to what the Civil Court would do in a trial of a civil suit, by applying the provisions of Rule (1) Order 16 of the CPC. It is, therefore, his submission that the petition ought to be dismissed.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the detailed order dated 11 January 2021 passed by the arbitral tribunal, at the outset, it would be appropriate to note the provisions of Section 27 of the Act which reads thus:

“27. Court assistance in taking evidence:

(1) The arbitral tribunal, or a party with the approval of the arbitra