Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, J
Surinder Singh – Appellant
Versus
Arrow Engineering Ltd. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Context and Background :
1. This is a bunch of Petitions filed and pending under Section 29-A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“the Act”) in connection with arbitration proceedings between multiple Petitioners (“Petitioners”) and the common Respondent, Arrow Engineering Ltd. (“Arrow”). These matters have been pending on the docket of this Court for a long time (since 2020), with neither party seriously pursuing the matter.
2. As it transpires, there have been a total of 22 Petitions, of which four came to be withdrawn. Of the 18 remaining Petitions, three Petitions (Arbitration Petition (L) Nos. 4321, 4322 and 4323 of 2020) were heard and disposed of by a Learned Single Judge of this Court by an order dated October 12, 2020 (“October 2020 Order”) extending the mandate of the Learned Arbitral Tribunal until November 1, 2021. Review Petitions were filed by Arrow in each of the Petitions that were disposed of, and the Learned Single Judge tagged the three Review Petitions with these Petitions by an order dated December 8, 2020.
3. Thereafter, nothing concrete has moved in the matter. Even the extended mandate expired. No fresh petitions under Section 29-A of the A
The court ruled that stale arbitration proceedings should not be extended, as the parties demonstrated a lack of interest and sufficient cause for delay, leading to dismissal of the petitions.
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....
Sub-section (4) of Section 29A deals with cases where award is not made within a period of twelve months from date of completion of pleadings.
The court held that the mandate of an arbitrator can be extended for sufficient cause, emphasizing that procedural delays should not prejudice the parties involved in arbitration.
The court clarified that the power to extend the mandate of the arbitrator under Section 29A(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act can be exercised even after the expiry of the specified period,....
Court extends arbitrator's mandate under Section 29A(5) post-expiry and termination upon sufficient cause, quashing abeyance where delays due to respondent and administration, prioritizing efficient ....
Absence of grounds for terminating arbitrator's mandate necessitates seeking extension under Section 29A of the Arbitration Act.
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
