Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
SANDEEP V.MARNE
Nalin Vallabhbhai Patel – Appellant
Versus
Atharva Realtors – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. prior arbitration abandoned due to applicant delay. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 2. 29a refusal bars fresh arbitration for faulting party. (Para 4 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 3. mandate termination does not end arbitral proceedings. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. no arbitrator appointment; proceedings terminated. (Para 14 , 20 , 40 , 41) |
| 5. 29a terminates arbitrator mandate, not proceedings. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 6. precedents distinguish mandate from proceedings termination. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28) |
| 7. fresh appointment depends on party fault post-29a. (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34) |
| 8. faultless party entitled to new arbitrator reference. (Para 35 , 36) |
| 9. court examines fault; rejects continuous cause argument. (Para 37 , 38 , 39) |
JUDGMENT :
SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
1) This Application, filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) for appointment of an arbitrator, raises an interesting issue as to whether an arbitrator can be appointed when the Court has expressly refused to extend the mandate of the earlier arbitrator by rejecting the Petition filed under Section 29A of the Arbitration Act. The Court is thus tasked upon to
Refusal to extend arbitrator's mandate under Section 29A due to claimant's fault and abandonment terminates arbitral proceedings, barring fresh appointment under Section 11 by defaulting party.
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.
The High Court has exclusive authority to extend the mandate of an arbitrator appointed under Section 11 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, regardless of the pecuniary value of the claim.
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....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the petitioner's recourse for appointment of a substitute arbitrator lies through Section 15 of The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, on....
(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....
(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....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the application under section 11(6) of the Act, 1996 is not maintainable when the sole Arbitrator is appointed by mutual consent and in the ab....
The Court established the applicability of section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and affirmed its jurisdiction to extend the arbitral tribunal's mandat....
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
