Back
PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, SANDEEP MEHTA
Ajay Protech Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
General Manager – Respondent
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 08.02.201
(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.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
