Court's intervention in arbitration proceedings is limited to cases of glaring error; otherwise, Arbitral Tribunal's decisions on witness summons will be upheld.

ORDER :

Abdul Quddhose, J.

This application has been filed under Section 27 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act seeking seal of approval of this Court of the order passed by the Arbitral Tribunal, rendering assistance for the applicants to examine two witnesses, namely, Ms.S.Pavithra and Ms.V.Priya.

2. Under the order for which approval is sought for, the applicants had sought the assistance of the Arbitral Tribunal to examine the aforesaid witnesses. Under the order, the Arbitral Tribunal has allowed the request made by the applicants. The applicants seek seal of approval of this Court of the order passed by the Arbitral Tribunal under Section 27 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

3. The applicants are the respondents and the respondent is the claimant in the Arbitration. During the examination of witnesses, the applicants claim that there became a necessity for the applicants to make a request to the Arbitrator for examination of the aforesaid two witnesses, since the respondent/claimant has categorically denied that they had issued receipts, which have been signed by the aforesaid two witnesses, namely, Ms.S.Pavithra and Ms.V.Priya. According to the applicants, they have paid the entire dues of the respondent/claimant and the receipts were signed by Ms.S.Pavithra and Ms.V.Priya for the confirmation of the same. The Arbitrator has acceded to the request of the applicants for the examination of the aforesaid two witnesses through the Arbitrator’s order dated 25.09.2024.

4. The respondent/claimant has filed a counter before this Court objecting to the approval being granted by this Court under Section 27 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 by raising the following objections:

a) No reasons whatsoever has been given by the Arbitrator for permitting the applicants to examine the two witnesses;

b) The witnesses cannot be summoned since they are no longer associated with the respondent/claimant;

c) Ms.S.Pavithra, who was earlier working with the respondent/claimant, has subsequently resigned;

d) The witnesses, who have been examined in the arbitration by any of the parties need not know the contents of the contract.

5. Learned counsel for the applicants would reiterate that since there is no glaring error in the order passed by the Arbitrator, the question of interfering with the same by this Court under Section 27 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act does not arise. He drew the attention of this Court to the order passed by the Arbitrator for which approval is sought for from this Court under Section 27 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.

6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent/claimant would reiterate the contents of the counter filed before this Court, which have been recorded in the earlier part of this order and would submit that this application is not maintainable. He would also rely upon the following authorities in support of his contentions in the counter filed before this Court:

a) Chunni Lal v. Kishori Lal reported in 1908 L.R. 36 I.A. 9 for the proposition that a litigant cannot cause his opponent to be summoned as a witness;

b) Kaliaperumal v.