Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: privilege document in Thiess Iviinecs India vs Ntpc Limited & Anr. on 28 March, 2016Matching Fragments
17. In paras 19 and 20, the Division Bench agreeing with the view of the learned Single Judge, has held as under:-
"19. We concur with the view taken by the learned Single Judge that the legality of the order passed by the Tribunal in so far it held on the relevancy of the documents and the effect of the Tribunal not deciding on the claim of privilege for one document as also its power under Section 18 had to await an award being passed for the reason the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 does not contemplate any challenge to such an order save and except when the award is pronounced. The criticism of the impugned order that the learned Single Judge could not have set aside the order passed by the Tribunal in so far the Tribunal opined that assistance from the Court was necessary overlooks the fact that the learned Single Judge has not over-ruled any part of the order passed by the Tribunal. What has been held by the learned Single Judge is that the Tribunal has sought assistance from the Court on an erroneous belief of the law. Throwing light on the law, being the power of the Tribunal vested in it; to direct production of a document by a party in lis before it, the request made by the Tribunal has been politely turned down.
20. We dismiss the appeal clarifying as the learned Single Judge has done that the legality of the order passed by the Tribunal concerning relevance and the omission not to decide on the claim of privilege of one document could be challenged by BHEL should it be aggrieved, when the award is published."
18. The Bombay High Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra), has inter-alia held that the Court cannot go into the validity of the order of the Tribunal granting permission to a party seeking assistance of the Court. The aggrieved party can challenge the Award along with the order passed by the Tribunal granting permission.
21. Insofar as the judgment of this Court in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (supra), Mr. Vikas Singh, had primarily relied upon to contend that the order of the Arbitrator should give reasons in support of its decision reached by the Arbitrator. There is no dispute on that proposition. Suffice to state, the Tribunal had considered the points raised by the respondent herein. It is not a case that where the Tribunal did not dwell into the issue of confidentiality. The other judgments referred by my Mr. Singh relates to confidential, privilege documents and the documents, which are statutorily barred from being disclosed.
29. Insofar as the judgment of the Supreme Court in Delta Distilleries Limited (supra) is concerned, in the said case, the Supreme Court has held that „any person‟ appearing under Section 27(2)(c) is wide enough to cover not merely the witnesses, but also the parties to the proceeding.
30. The other judgments relied upon by Mr. Vikas Singh, relate to confidentiality/privileged documents, which in view of my aforesaid conclusion may not be necessary to be gone into.
31. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The respondent is directed to produce the documents as allowed by the Tribunal vide its order dated September 21, 2015 and March 6, 2016 before the Tribunal as detailed in para 34 of the petition. No costs.