ORDER

Sri.G.S.Venkat Subba Rao., learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.B.Vachan., learned counsel for respondent have appeared in person.

The captioned Writ Petition is filed challenging the order dated:20.04.2017 passed by the Arbitrator on I.A.No.01/2017 in A.C.No.20/2011 wherein, the Arbitrator has directed the petitioner to produce the Income Tax Returns.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their status and ranking before the Arbitrator.

3. The brief facts are these:

The Claimant raised a dispute against the respondent under Section 23 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act for redressal of an alleged dispute arising out of the Memorandum of Understanding dated:29.04.2007 entered into between the Claimant and respondent.

The respondent subjected himself to the jurisdiction and sought for a counter claim against the claimant claiming a sum of Rs.1,79,18,750/- (Rupees One Crore Seventy Nine Lakh Eighteen Thousand Seven Hundred and Fifty only) payable by the Claimant.

The Tribunal framed Issues. The Managing Director of the Claimant was examined as PW1 and produced various documents in support of its contentions and the said witness was also cross examined by the respondent.

On the lines of the counter claim and also to defend the claim of the claimant, a witness RW1 is examined and the evidence was half way through. In the midst of the cross examination of RW1, the claimant filed an application under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking an order against the respondent to produce the documents like Income Tax Returns of respondent concern and also that of its individual partners.

The Arbitrator allowed the application and directed the respondent to produce the documents. This order is called into question in this Writ Petition on several grounds as set out in the Memorandum of Writ Petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent have urged several contentions.

Sri.G.S.Venkat Subba Rao., learned counsel for petitioner in presenting his argument vehemently contended that the Arbitrator is not justified in compelling the petitioner to produce the documents. He also argued by saying that the Provisions of Arbitration Act do not contemplate issuing any direction to the party to the proceedings to do a positive act like production of documents.

In reply, Sri.B.Vachan., learned counsel for respondent submitted that since the counterclaim is filed by the petitioner, the production of the documents is essential. Taking into consideration the issue, the Arbitrator allowed the application.

Hence, he submitted that the Writ Petition may be dismissed.

5. Heard, the contentions urged on behalf of the respective parties and perused the Writ papers and also the Annexures with utmost care.

6. The following simple point would arise for my consideration:

Is the Arbitrator justified in compelling the petitioner to produce the Income-Tax Returns details?

Suffice it to note that the respondent herein initiated arbitration proceedings against the petitioner. It is pivotal to note that the petitioner also made a counterclaim. When the matter was set down for the cross-examination of RW1 i.e., in the midst of the cross-examination of the witness RW1, the Claimant moved an application under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

The application made under Section 17 is furnished at Annexure-J. In the said application, the claimant sought direction from the respondent to produce the Income Tax Returns along with Profit and Loss Statement for the year 2007-08 to 2012-13 of M/s.Jayasurya Developers and that of its partners namely Mr.M.H.Gopala Reddy and Mr.L.S.Narayana Reddy. It is noted that the petitioner filed a detailed objection contending that the application is not maintainable.

It is not in dispute that the petitioner has filed a counter claim and it is for the petitioner to establish its claim to succeed in the counter claim. It goes without saying that the non