2001 (4) TMI 907 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Section 340 CrPC in proceedings before an arbitrator.
2. Interpretation of the term "Court" u/s 195 of the CrPC in the context of arbitration.

Summary:

Applicability of Section 340 CrPC in Proceedings Before an Arbitrator:
The Supreme Court addressed whether the provisions of Section 340 CrPC apply to proceedings before an arbitrator. The Court examined the relevant sections, including Sections 340 and 195(1)(b) and (3) of the CrPC, and concluded that the term "Court" as used in these sections does not include an arbitrator. The Court emphasized that the legislative intent behind the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, based on the UNCITRAL model, is to minimize court interference and uphold party autonomy.

Interpretation of the Term "Court" u/s 195 of the CrPC in the Context of Arbitration:
The Court analyzed the definition of "Court" u/s 195(3) of the CrPC, which includes a tribunal constituted by or under a Central, Provincial, or State Act if declared by that Act to be a Court for the purposes of this section. The Court noted that the Arbitration Act, 1996, does not declare an arbitral tribunal to be a Court for the purposes of Section 195. The Court referred to various precedents, including Thawardas Pherumal & Anr. v. Union of India and Brajnandan Sinha v. Jyoti Narain, which established that an arbitrator is not a Court within the meaning of the Code of Civil Procedure.

The Court also considered the decision in Dr. Baliram Waman Hiray v. Justice B. Lentin and Others, which clarified that a body must have the capacity to deliver a definitive judgment to be considered a Court. The Court concluded that an arbitrator does not meet this criterion.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court held that an arbitrator cannot be termed a Court within the meaning of Section 195 of the CrPC. Therefore, the provisions of Section 340 CrPC do not apply to proceedings before an arbitrator. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.