SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, SANDEEP MEHTA, JJ.
M/s Ajay Protech Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
General Manager and Another – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 13004 of 2024 (Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 2272 of 2024)
Decided On : 22-11-2024
(A) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 29A(4) – Mandate of Arbitral Tribunal – Extension of – Court has power and jurisdiction to extend period – Arbitral award is not made within 12 months from when pleadings are completed, extendable by a further 6 months by mutual consent of parties, Tribunal’s mandate will terminate unless court either prior or after expiry of period, extends it – Court can extend Tribunal’s mandate after expiry of statutory and extendable period of 18 months – Termination of mandate under the provision is only conditional on non-filing of extension application and cannot be taken to mean that mandate cannot be extended once it expires – Reasoning adopted by High Court in holding that there is delay of 2 years, 4 months in filing application is erroneous. (Paras 2, 8, 9, 10 and 13)
(B) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 29A(4) – Mandate of Arbitral Tribunal – Extension of – Efficiency in conduct of arbitral proceedings is integral to effectiveness of dispute resolution remedy through arbitration – Efficiency is inextricably connected with expeditious conclusion of arbitral proceedings – While statute incorporates party autonomy even with respect to conduct and conclusion of arbitral proceedings, there is statutory recognition of power of Court to step in wherever it is necessary to ensure that process of resolution of dispute is taken to its logical end, if according to Court, circumstances so warrant – Arbitration and Conciliation Act adopts well-known language of limitation statutes and provides that Court can extend time if it finds that there is sufficient cause – Primary objective in rendering arbitral award is to resolve disputes through agreed dispute resolution mechanism as contracted by parties – Sufficient cause should be interpreted in context of facilitating effective dispute resolution – In present case, there is sufficient cause for extension of time taken note of fact that pandemic had commenced even before expiry of 12 months from completion of pleadings, Supreme Court excluding period between 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2023 in Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation. (Paras 15, 16 and 17)
Facts of the case:
Short issue in this appeal is whether application filed by appellant under Section 29A(4) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for extension of mandate of Arbitral Tribunal ought to have been allowed by High Court.
Findings of Court:
Having taken note of fact that pandemic had commenced even before expiry of 12 months from completion of pleadings, this Court excluding period between 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2023 in Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation and agreement between parties on 05.05.2023 to seek extension of time by filing application before Court, there is sufficient cause for extension of time.
Result : Civil Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The short issue in this appeal is whether the application filed by the appellant under Section 29A(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 19961 [Hereinafter “the Act”] for extension of the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal ought to have been allowed by the High Court. The text of Section 29A was sufficient for us to come to the conclusion that the Court has the power and jurisdiction to extend the period. Further, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we found that there is ‘sufficient cause’ for the Court to extend the period for making the Award. Thus, we have allowed the appeal and extended the time till 31st December, 2024 to make the Award. In this context, we have also explained the purport of the expression sufficient cause employed in this section.
3. The brief facts are as follows. The appellant entered into a works contract with respondent no. 1. Subsequently when disputes arose, appellant sought resolution through arbitration by issuing a notice on 12.02.2018. Appellant’s application under Section 11 of the Act for appointment of a sole arbitrator was allowed by the High Court by orders dated 08.02.2019 and 15.02.2019.
3.1 After the first meeting of the Arbitral Tribunal on 24.06.2019, parties were given time to complete their pleadings, which were in- fact completed on 09.10.2019. The statutorily stipulated 12-month period under Section 29A(1) for making the award commences from this date, and would expire on 08.10.2020. Further, as the parties can extend this period by another 6 months by mutual consent as per Section 29A(3), upon such mutual extension the time for making the award got extended till 09.04.2021. Therefore, the 18-month period, which commenced from 09.10.2019, would have naturally expired on 09.04.2021.
3.2 However, before the expiry of the said period, in fact even before the first stretch of 12 months, the nation was affected by the COVID pandemic. Taking note of this situation, this Court in Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation by order dated 10.01.2022 passed orders declaring that the period between 15.03.2020 and 28.02.2022 shall be excluded in computing periods of limitation under Sections 23(4) and 29(A) of the Act.2 [In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, (2022) 3 SCC 117] The relevant portion of the said order is as under:
*** *** ***
5.4. It is further clarified that the period from 15-3-2020 till 28-2-2022 shall also stand excluded in computing the periods prescribed under Sections 23(4) and 29-A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 12-A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and provisos (b) and (c) of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and any other laws, which prescribe period(s) of limitation for instituting proceedings, outer limits (within which the court or tribunal can condone delay) and termination of proceedings.”
3.3 Returning to the arbitral proceedings, the Arbitral Tribunal framed issues on 21.11.2019 and posted the matter for arguments for December 2019 and January 2020 but was compelled to adjourn the proceedings due to the pandemic. The record reveals that the proceedings resumed in the year 2022, and in fact, the hearing was concluded on 05.05.2023. It is an admitted fact that the parties to the arbitration agreement have submitted before the Arbitral Tribunal that they would move the Court under Section 29A(4) of the Act for appropriate orders for extension of time for making the award. In furtherance of the undertaking, an application under Section 29A(4) was filed by the appellant before the Gujarat High Court on 01.08.2023.
4. By the order dated 03.11.2023 impugned before us, the H
In re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation
Rohan Builders (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Berger Paints India Ltd.
(1) Extension of mandate of Arbitral Tribunal – Court has power and jurisdiction to extend period.(2) Efficiency in conduct of arbitral proceedings is integral to effectiveness of dispute resolution ....
The court can extend the mandate of arbitrators under Section 29A(5) after an award is rendered, even if done post statutory timeline, reinforcing the integrity of the arbitration process.
(1) Arbitral award – Application for extension of time period for passing arbitral award under Section 29A(4) read with Section 29A(5) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is maintainable even a....
(1) Extension of mandate of Arbitrator(s) – Application under Section 29A(5) for extension of mandate of Arbitrator is maintainable even after expiry of time under Sections 29A(1) and (3) and even af....
Court may extend arbitrator's mandate under Section 29A(4),(5) post-termination for sufficient cause not attributable to petitioners, prioritizing pragmatic and effective arbitral conclusion.
Extension of Sole Arbitrator's mandate under the Arbitration Act requires sufficient cause, unaffected by procedural misconduct by arbitrator, especially when delays arise from the respondent's actio....
Court extends arbitrator's mandate post-termination under Section 29A(5) for sufficient cause like procedural and administrative delays not attributable to petitioner, ensuring practical, expeditious....
Court extends arbitrator mandate post-expiry under Sec 29A(4),(5) on sufficient cause like advanced proceedings, non-attributable delay, ensuring logical conclusion without petitioner fault.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.