The judgment of the Supreme court in Sundaram Finance Ltd v. NEPC India Ltd., reported in   (1999) 2 SCC 479 observed at para 12 thereof that though section 17 gives the arbitral tribunal the power to pass orders, the same cannot be enforced as orders of a court and it is for this reason only that Section 9 gives the court power to pass interim orders during the arbitration proceedings.

Subsequently, in M.D. Army Welfare Housing Organisation v. Sumangal Services Pvt. Ltd., reported in  ( 2004 ) 9 SCC 619 , the Apex Court had held at para 56 thereof that under section 17 of the Act no power is conferred on the arbitral tribunal to enforce its order nor does it provide the judicial enforcement thereof.

However, in the case of Sri Krishan Vs. Anand, OMP. No. 597/2008, decided on 18.08.2009 by Mr. Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J. of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, reported in Manu/De/1828/2009, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that Enforcement of an order of injunction passed by the Arbitral Tribunal would be enforced under Section 27 (5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 which deals with "Court assistance in taking evidence” which is as under:

Persons failing to attend in accordance with such process, or making any other default, or refusing to give their evidence, or guilty of any contempt to the arbitral tribunal during the conduct of arbitral proceedings, shall be subject to the like disadvantages, penalties and punishments by order of the Court on the representation of the arbitral tribunal as they would incur for the like offences in suits tried before the court.”

The Court stated as under:

“Any person failing to comply with the order of the arbitral tribunal would be deemed to be "making any other default" or "guilty of any contempt to the arbitral tribunal during the conduct of the proceedings". Thus the remedy of the other party is to apply to the arbitral tribunal for making a representation to the court to meet out such punishment, penalty to the guilty party, as would have been incurred for default in or contempt of the court. Naturally, the arbitral tribunal would make such a representation to the court only upon being satisfied that the party/person is in default or in contempt. Once such a representation is received by this court from the arbitral tribunal, this court would be competent to deal with such party in default or in contempt as if in contempt of order of this court, i.e., either under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act or under the provisions of Order 39 Rule 2A Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.”

The Hon’ble Court also clarified that Section 27(5) was not noticed in Sundaram Finance Ltd. or in Sumangal Services Pvt. Ltd. (supra) perhaps, because it was hedged in the heading/title of Section 27. However, since the said heading/title cannot limit or narrow the otherwise wide amplitude of Sub-section (5) of Section 27, the default, contempt mentioned therein cannot be limited to that only in appearance of witnesses before the arbitral tribunal. To do so, would be to render the words "any other default" and "guilty of any contempt" therein otiose.

In arriving at the aforesaid dicta, the Court found support of the following  decisions which held as under:

(i)                 Anuptech Equipments Private Ltd. v. Ganpati Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. AIR 1999 Bombay 219 where in para 16 reference is made to Section  27(5) in the context of holding that the arbitral tribunal discharges the inherent judicial function of the State – it is for this reason only that in a major departure from 1940 Act, power of contempt of arbitral tribunal has been conferred; once a person can be punished for contempt of the arbitral tribunal and which can bring the administration of justice into disrespect or interference with the administration of justice, it shows the legislative intent qua the arbitral tribunal and

(ii)              Maharashtra State Electricity Board v. Datar Switchgear Ltd. reported in MANU/MH/1187/2002 also holding that Section 27(5) reveals the scheme of the legislation; the contempt of the arbitral tribunal has been made subject to imposition of disadvantages, penalties and punishments by order of the court on the representation of the arbitral tribunal, also approved by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in Saurashtra Chemicals Ltd. v. Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. Ramamoorthy (Retd.) reported in MANU/GJ/0329/2005.