Case title: Rohan Builders (India) Pvt. Ltd. v Berger Paints India Limited A.P. 328 of 2023 dated 06.09.2023
Facts: Petitioners in all three applications had prayed for extension of the Arbitrators’ mandates in order to make and publish the awards, while the respondents had opposed the aforesaid prayer.
Petitioners had sought extension of the arbitrator’s mandate in exercise of the Court’s power under Section 29-A (4), but the relief could not be granted since the respondents did not agree to extend the mandate, and the extension application had been filed after expiry of the period for making award under Section 29-A (1).
Sequitur by the court:
In dealing with the arguments of the parties, the Court looked at the Section 29 of the Arbitration Act, and held that Section 29-A (4) and (5) did not contemplate any further windows for extension of arbitrators’ mandate, outside of an application being made for a 12 month extension, followed by another 6 months extension by consent of the parties, if the award was not made within the prescribed time-frame.
It was held that the insertion of Section 29-A into the Act in 2016 was “an intervention in the sense of mandating statutory timelines for making of the award.”
Court held:
The erstwhile position in law thus makes it clear that the Court was empowered to extend the mandate for making the award regardless of whether the time had expired for making the award.
Section 29-A changed all that and brought in not only strict time-limits for making of the award but also the concept of termination of the mandate if the award is not made within the prescribed statutory timelines.
Finally, in observing that the object of inserting Section 29-A was to expedite the arbitration process, the Court concluded that stakeholders in an arbitrations process ought to be vigilant to expediting the process in order to enable an award.
It was held that a party could not be permitted under Section 29-A to make an application under subsection (4) for extending mandate of an arbitrator at any time after the mandate had expired, and that if the Court would empower itself to extend the aforesaid mandate, then “it would inevitably lead to breaching limits for making the award envisaged under Section 29-A.” – LiveLaw
#arbitration #highcourt #limitation #award #calcuttahighcourt
This website has been designed only for the purposes of dissemination of basic information on ADROIT; information which is otherwise available on the internet, various public platforms and social media. Careful attention has been given to ensure that the information provided herein is accurate and up-to-date.
This website is not an attempt to advertise or solicit clients and does not seek to create or invite any lawyer-client relationship. The links provided on this website are to facilitate access to basic information on ADROIT, and, to share the various thought leadership initiatives undertaken by it. The content herein or on such links should not be construed as a legal reference or legal advice. Readers are advised not to act on any information contained herein or on the links and should refer to legal counsels and experts in their respective jurisdictions for further information and to determine its impact.
