PRAMERICA ASPF II CYPRUS HOLDING LTD v. GLOBAL HERITAGE VENTURE LTD

2. The tribunal vide order dated 01.08.2013 allowed both parties to summon the witnesses in respect of which court's aid is sought. The claimant seeks summoning ofMrRakesh Kumar Garg, while therespondent before the tribunal seeks summoning Ms Victoria Shigehere Sharpe. The reasons set out in the order of the tribunal are as follows: ".... The respective applicatins assign reasons as to why the tersimony of the witnesses is necessary, and why the applicant-party would not be able to produce the witnesses except by the assistance of the Court? Both the applications have been opposed by the respective opposite parties on very many grounds. Having heard the Ld. Counsel for the Parties, we are of the opinion that the parties should not be denied opportunity of producing the witnesses. The stage of the case is that the first witness for the Claimant is under cross examination, which is yet to be concluded. No prejudice will be caused to either party by permitting examination of the additional witnesses. The peculiar circumstances set out in the applications make it clear that the applicants would not be able to produce the witnesses and file their evidence on affidavits and viva-voce examination shall have to be held. Both the applications are allowed. Approval is granted to the parties to apply to the Court for issuance of process to summonthe witnesses for their appearance before the Arbitral Tribunal enablingtheir evidence being recorded on such dates as may be appointed by the Tribunal.

3. Mr Chetan Sharma, learned senior counsel, who appears for the respondent before the tribunal, resisted the prayer made by the claimant before me for summoning Mr Rakesh Kumar Garg. He says that there are no reasons set out in the order of the tribunal dated 01.08.2013. The tribunal, according to him, had to examine the relevance ofthe witness O.M.P. 1012/2013 &849/2013 Page 2of[4] summoned, and then, pass suitable orders in that behalf.

4. On the other hand, Mr Nandrajog, learned senior counsel, says that they do not wish to oppose the prayer made in the OMP No. 849/2013.

5. Therefore, I have to only deal with the submissions of Mr Chetan Sharma. In my view, the jurisdiction of this court in Section 27 of the Act is not a supervisory jurisdiction; it is limited to aiding and assisting the arbitral tribunal for summoning and production of witness cited before it. In this case aid is sought to summon the witness referred to in the order of the tribunal. In so far as the relevance of the testimony is concerned, the same will be examined as and when the concerned witness deposes before the tribunal. 5.[1] The tribunal in exercise of its powers, is most certainly, required to give reasons. The reasons need notbe detailed. As long asthe court is able to discern some basis on which the arbitral tribunal has summoned witnesses or requisite evidence, it would meet with the requirements, of Section 27 of the Act.

6. The arbitral tribunal, in this case, it seems, in order to avoid prolixity, has relied upon various averments made by contesting parties in their respective applications filed before it, under Section 27 of the Act. It is, therefore, the understanding of the tribunal that given the facts and circumstances set out in the application, the parties before it, would be unable to produce the witnesses on their own. It is, therefore, the assessment of the tribunal that viva-voce examination of the witnesses referred to intheir order dated 01.08.2013, isnecessary.

7. In myview, there is no error in the orderand, therefore, the submission O.M.P. 1012/2013 &849/2013 Page3of[4] of Mr Sharma is rejected. Accordingly, Mr Rakesh Kumar Garg and Ms Victoria Shigehira Sharpe will present themselves before the tribunal on the dates indicated in the order of the tribunal read with order dated 09.09.2013.

8. In view of the fact that this is the last working day of this term, the parties are granted liberty to communicate the essence of the order passed by this court today to the tribunal.

9. The petitions are, accordingly, disposed of RAJIV SHAKDHER, J OCTOBER 11, 2013 Ick