SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img



IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
C. Hari Shankar, J.
GPT-Rahee (JV) - Appellant
Versus
Ircon International Ltd. - Respondent
O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 7 of 2021 & I.A. 194 of 2021
Decided On : 07-01-2021




Extension of time under Section 29A(4) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act applies to applications under Section 33(1)(a) to prevent parties from losing their rights due to procedural delays.

Headnote:(A) Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 - Sections 29A(4), 29A(5), and 33(1)(a) - Application for extension of time - The Arbitrator's mandate expired before the application for correction could be decided. The court held that Section 29A(4) applies to extend time for deciding applications under Section 33(1)(a) to prevent deprivation of rights. (Paras 1-6)

(B) Extension of Time - The court ruled that a request for time extension under Section 29A(4) is valid, ensuring the applicant's rights are protected. (Paras 3-6)

Facts of the case:
The claimant applied for a decision on a Section 33(1)(a) application but the Arbitrator's mandate expired before the decision could be made.

Findings of Court:
The time for the Arbitrator to decide the application under Section 33(1)(a) is extended by two months from 1st January, 2021.

Issues: The court addressed whether an extension of time under Section 29A(4) can be granted for applications under Section 33(1)(a).

Ratio Decidendi: The extension of time is necessary to allow the tribunal to consider applications timely filed, thus protecting the applicant’s rights.

Result: Petition allowed.

Table of Content
1. context of the arbitration proceedings (Para 1 , 2)
2. request for extension of time under arbitration (Para 3 , 4)
3. interpretation of section 29a for extension (Para 5)
4. decision to allow extension of time (Para 6 , 7)

ORDER

(Video-Conferencing)

1. This is an application under Section 29A(4) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the "1996 Act"). The arbitration, to which the application relates and pertaining to the disputes between the parties to this application, was being conducted by Hon'ble Mr. Justice A. K. Sikri, an eminent retired Judge of the Supreme Court and a former Judge of this court.

2. The learned Arbitrator passed his award, in the arbitral proceedings, on 19th December, 2020. Section 33(1)(a) allows the parties, to any arbitral proceedings, to move an application for correction, before the learned arbitral tribunal, within 30 days of the receipt of the arbitral award. Section 33(2) grants 30 days' time to the arbitral tribunal to consider the request made under Section 33(1)(a) and to pass orders thereof. The petitioner received the arbitral award, passed by the learned sole Arbitrator, on 19th December, 2020. An application under Section 33(1)(a), was preferred by the petitioner on 28th December, 2020, admittedly within the time available under Section 33(1)(a). Unfortunately, before the application could be decided and, even before the expiry of 30 days available under section 33 (2) for the learned Arbitrator to decide the application, the mandate of the learned Arbitrator expired on 1st January, 2021.

3. It is in these circumstances that the present application has been preferred, by the claimant before the learned Arbitrator, to grant extension of time under Section 29A(4) & (5) of the 1996 Act so that the learned Arbitrator could decide the application filed by the petitioner under Section 33(1)(a).

4. Mr. Suman Doval, learned counsel for the respondent, in all fairness, does not oppose the request, though he submits that the issue of whether extension of time, for deciding an application under Section 33(1)(a), can be granted under Section 29A(4) and (5) of the 1996 Act, may require adjudication in an appropriate case.

5. Prima facie, in my view, Section 29A(4) and (5) would also apply to grant of extension of time, in order to enable an arbitral tribunal to decide an application under Section 33(1)(a), as otherwise, in a case such as the present, the Section 33(1)(a) applicant, despite having preferred the application before the learned Arbitrator in time, would be divested of the right to have the application decided.

6. In any event, as Mr. Suman Doval fairly agrees to extension of time for the learned Arbitrator to decide the application of the petitioner under Section 33(1)(a), the time available with the learned Arbitrator stands extended by a period of two months, with effect from 1st January, 2021.

7. This petition stands allowed accordingly.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top