In a significant ruling concerning BPT Infra Project Pvt. Ltd v/s Indraprastha Ice And Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the High Court has affirmed the authority of arbitral tribunals to summon witnesses, thereby emphasizing the importance of judicial assistance in the arbitration process. The court's decision stems from a petition filed under Section 27 of the Act, which allows arbitral tribunals to seek assistance from the court in taking evidence.

The petitioner, a contractor, was engaged by the respondent to construct a Control Atmosphere Storage (CA) Plant in Kullu, Himachal Pradesh. During the execution of the contract, costs were reportedly inflated from ?10 crores to ?20 crores, which the petitioner claimed was a deliberate strategy to hinder the project's completion. Following the termination of the contract, the petitioner sought arbitration to recover expected profits lost due to the alleged malfeasance.

The petitioner subsequently applied to the arbitral tribunal to summon two crucial witnesses: Mr. D.P. Singh, a chief consultant, and Mr. S.C. Jain, an authorized person from the respondent’s consulting firm, M/s Architect Bureau. The tribunal, acknowledging the relevance of their testimonies, directed the petitioner to approach the High Court for assistance in summoning these witnesses.

The main contention raised by the respondent's counsel centered around the adequacy of the arbitral tribunal's order. The counsel argued that the tribunal’s approval lacked sufficient application of mind regarding the relevance of the evidence sought from the witnesses. Citing previous judgments, he contended that the order was mechanical and did not reflect a thorough consideration of the necessity of summoning the witnesses.

However, the High Court underscored that while detailed reasoning was not mandatory, the tribunal must demonstrate a conscious application of mind to the relevance of the evidence. The court distinguished between mechanical approval and a more thoughtful endorsement of the evidence's pertinence.

the main contention raised by the respondents counsel centered around the adequacy of the arbitral tribunals order. the counsel argued that the tribunals approval lacked sufficient application of mind regarding the relevance of the evidence sought from the witnesses. citing previous 

The High Court ultimately held that:

Approval Requirement: The tribunal's approval under Section 27(1) does not require exhaustive reasoning but must indicate a thoughtful assessment of the relevance of the witnesses.

No Judicial Overreach: The court reiterated the principle of limited judicial intervention in arbitration, emphasizing that the discretion to summon witnesses rests with the arbitral tribunal, thus safeguarding the integrity of the arbitral process.

Relevance of Evidence: The application by the petitioner clearly delineated the necessity for summoning the witnesses, thus indicating that the tribunal's order implicitly recognized this relevance.

The High Court's decision reinforces the role of courts in facilitating the arbitration process while maintaining respect for the arbitral tribunal's autonomy. The directive for Mr. D.P. Singh and Mr. S.C. Jain to appear before the tribunal on July 20, 2024, not only advances the proceedings but also serves as a critical reminder of the judiciary's supportive role in arbitration. This ruling stands as a landmark affirmation of the need for collaboration between the judiciary and arbitral institutions, enhancing the efficiency and effectiveness of arbitration in India.