Facts & Background:

• Alka Chandewar was the Appellant.
• Shamshul Ishrar Khan was the Respondent.
• On 7th October 2010, the Sole Arbitrator, appointed by the parties, passed an interim order under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, restraining the Respondent from disposing of any further flats without the leave of the Arbitral Tribunal.
• On 14 October 2010, the Respondent purportedly violated the interim order by transferring five flats. On 22 March 2012, the arbitrator determined that the Respondent had breached the order and issued additional interim directions.
• On 5th May 2014, the Arbitrator referred the matter of alleged contempt of the interim order dated 7th October 2010 to the Bombay High Court for appropriate action under Section 27(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
• The Bombay High Court interpreted Section 27(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, restrictively, ruling that it did not allow the Tribunal to represent contempt of orders to the Court, except for evidence matters.
• The High Court also held that the Contempt Petition was time-barred and not maintainable while noting the Arbitrator's award of Rs. 8 crores in favour of the petitioner.
• Therefore, this appeal was filed.
  

Main Issue:

• Does Section 27(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, ensure the enforceability of interim orders passed by the Arbitral Tribunal to avoid rendering Section 17 redundant and ineffective?
• Does the introduction of Section 17(2) by the 2015 Amendment Act eliminate the need for an arbitral tribunal to approach the High Court for contempt proceedings for its interim orders?