Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
C. Hari Shankar, J.
Hindustan Construction Company Limited - Appellant
Versus
Ircon International Limited - Respondent
O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 36 of 2021
Decided On : 03-03-2021
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. final disposition of the petition. (Para 1 , 2 , 10) |
| 2. petition for extension of arbitral mandate. (Para 3) |
| 3. discussion on request for refresher hearing. (Para 4 , 6 , 7) |
| 4. court's rationale on urgency of award pronouncement. (Para 5 , 8) |
| 5. extension of mandate granted for three months. (Para 9) |
(Video-Conferencing)
IA 3279/2021 (Section 151 CPC for condonation of delay)
1. For the reasons stated in the application, delay is condoned.
2. The application stands disposed of.
O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 36/2021
3. This is a petition under Section 29A(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as "1996 Act"), seeking extension of the mandate of the learned Arbitral Tribunal to adjudicate on the disputes between the parties. The mandate expired on 4th February, 2021.
4. Mr. Wadhwa, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, draws my attention to the email dated 18th January, 2021, from the learned Presiding Arbitrator, which reads thus:
"From: Badar Ahmed
Sent: 18 January 2021 12:18
To: NAIK Gurudas/CONTRACTS & CLAIMS/H.O.
Cc: BP Khare
Subject: Arbitration BETWEEN Hindustan Construction Company Limited AND IRCON International Ltd
Dear All,
The Hon'ble High Court had extended the time for making the award till 04.02.2021 by virtue of its order dated 06.11.2020. However, discussions could not be concluded till after the first week of January 2021 as, Mr. Bhuvnesh Prakash Khare, a member of the Arbitral Tribunal was indisposed. The discussions amongst the members of the Arbitral Tribunal have now been finally held through videoconferencing and the award is at the stage of finalisation. In all likelihood the proceedings would be completed on or before 04.02.2021.
However, since the arbitrators are located in three different cities, the signing at three different locations and consequent postal communications would also take some time.
Accordingly, to be on the safe side, the parties may apply for extension of time till the end of February, 2021for making the award.
Justice Badar Durrez Ahmed (retd)
Presiding Arbitrator"
5. It appears, therefore, that the award is on the cusp of pronouncement.
6. Mr. Mukhopadhyay, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent, submits that he has no objection to extension of time as sought, but that the learned Arbitral Tribunal may be directed to provide another opportunity of "refresher hearing" to his client, given the time that has lapsed since the award was reserved.
7. Mr. Wadhwa points out that a request, to this effect, was made and was rejected by the learned Presiding Arbitrator on 7th December, 2020.
8. In view thereof, I am not inclined to accede to the request for the learned Arbitral Tribunal to give a "refresher hearing" to the respondent, especially as the afore-extracted email from the Hon'ble Presiding Member of the learned Arbitral Tribunal seems to indicate that the award is likely to be pronounced soon.
9. In view thereof, the mandate of the learned Arbitral Tribunal stands extended by a period of three months from today.
10. This petition stands disposed of.
The court upheld the extension of the Arbitral Tribunal's mandate under Section 29A(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, permitting additional time for award finalization.
Extension of Arbitral Tribunal's mandate is permissible under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act when both parties consent.
The court can extend the mandate of an Arbitral Tribunal under Section 29A(6) when there are no objections from the parties involved.
The court affirmed that extraordinary circumstances, such as a pandemic, can justify extending the mandate of an arbitral tribunal under Section 29 A(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Extension of arbitration proceedings under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act can be granted when both parties consent, ensuring completion in a timely manner.
The court recognized that external factors such as the Covid pandemic can justify the extension of an arbitral tribunal's mandate under Section 29 A (5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The court upheld the extension of the arbitral tribunal's mandate under Section 29 A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, ensuring resolution of disputes while considering previous procedural del....
Court may extend the mandate of an arbitral tribunal under justifiable circumstances, such as delays caused by external factors like pandemics, especially when there is no opposition from the other p....
The court permitted a six-month extension of the arbitrator's mandate based on a joint application from both parties under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The court upheld the extension of the arbitral tribunal's mandate to allow for proper resolution of disputes, supporting procedural fairness in arbitration.
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
