IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Bhargav D. Karia, J.
M/s Magirsha Industries – Petitioner
Versus
M/S Gujarat State Fertilizer and Chemicals Limited – Respondent
R/Petn. Under Arbitration Act No. 13 of 2023
Decided On : 10-02-2023
Arbitration Act - Extension of Arbitral Proceedings - Section 29A (4) - Section 29A(5) - Section 11(6)
Fact of the Case:
The applicant sought an extension of the arbitral proceedings under Section 29A(4) of the Arbitration Act due to the inability to attend the arbitration proceedings. The Court granted an extension of 12 months from the date of expiry, excluding the period during which the Court and the Apex Court had extended the period of limitation due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the application for extension of time under Section 29A(4) of the Arbitration Act is to be heard by the Court, and in this case, it was required to be heard by the Court having jurisdiction to hear Arbitration petitions under the roster.
Issues: The main issue was whether the application for extension of time under Section 29A(4) of the Arbitration Act should be heard by the Court or by the nominee of the Chief Justice under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the application for extension of time under Section 29A(4) of the Arbitration Act is to be heard by the Court having jurisdiction to hear Arbitration petitions under the roster, and granted an extension of two months to complete the arbitral proceedings.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the application and granted an extension of two months to complete the arbitral proceedings.
ORDER :
1. Heard learned advocate Mr.Rushabh H. Shah for the applicant and learned advocate Mr.Nisarg Desai with Mr.Devarsh Trivedi for Gandhi Law Associates for the respondent no.1, who appears on advance copy.
2. This is an application under Section 29A (4) read with Sub-section (5) read with Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2019 (for short “the Arbitration Act”). It is stated in the application that a reference was made by the Micro Small and Medium Enterprise Facilitation Council to the Gujarat Chamber of Commerce Alternative Dispute Resolution Center under Section 18(3) of the Micro Small and Medium Enterprise Act, 2006. Pursuant to the reference made by the Council, Mr.Amal Dhru was appointed as a Sole Arbitrator in the year 2018.
3. The Arbitral proceedings are conducted as under:-
ii. Reply to statement of claim & Counter claim, if any: on or before 9th February, 2019;
iii. Rejoinder/reply to counter claim, if any: on or before 23rd February, 2019;
iv. Rejoinder to reply in case if there is any counter claim: on or before 9th March, 2019;
v. Suggested issues along with admission and denial of documents to be submitted by the Claimant & Respondent on 16th March, 2019;
vi. Hearing for framing of issues and admission and denial of documents: 23rd March, 2019.”
4. The claim statement along with the documents was submitted on 1st January, 2019 by the applicant and the statement of defence was filed by the respondent on 9th February, 2019 and rejoinder was filed on 25th February, 2019.
5. Learned advocate Mr.Rushabh Shah referred to Section 29A(1) of the Arbitration Act which stipulates that the Arbitral Tribunal is required to pass an award within a period of 12 months from the date of completion of the pleadings under Sub-section (4) of Section 23 of the Arbitration Act. It was submitted that the 12 months period for passing the award by the Tribunal would start from 26.02.2019 and would end on 26.02.2020 and 12 months would be completed on 26.02.2020. It was submitted that the parties could not attend the arbitration proceedings and therefore an application was filed being IAAP No.68 of 2020 before this Court under Section 29A(4) of the Arbitration Act for extension of the arbiral proceedings.
6. Learned advocate Mr.Shah invited the attention of this Court to the order dated 04.03.2022 passed by the Hon’ble the Chief Justice of this Court granting extension of 12 months, which reads as under:-
7. Therefore, the period from 20.03.2020 to 26.02.2021 is required to be excluded as per the order dated 10.01.2022 passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Miscellaneous Application NO.21 of 2022 in Miscellaneous Application NO.665 of 2021 in SUO Motu Writ Petition (C) No.3 of 2020 IN RE: Congnizance For Extension of Limitation With Miscellaneous Application NO.29 of 2022 in Miscellaneous Application NO.665 of 2021 in SUO Motu Writ Petition (C) No.3 of 2020, which reads as under:-
2. On 23.03.2020, this Court directed extension of the period of limitation in all proceedings before Courts/Tribunals including this Court w.e.f. 15.03.2020 till further orders. On 08.03.2021, the order dated 23.03.2020 was brought to an end, permitting the relaxation of period of limitation between 15.03.2020 and 14.03.20
State of Jharkhand and Ors. vs. Hindustan Construction Company Ltd.
Lalitkumar V. Sanghavi (D) Th.Lrs Neeta Lalit Kumar Sanghavi vs. Dharamdas V. Sanghavi
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the application for extension of time under Section 29A(4) of the Arbitration Act is to be heard by the Court having jurisdiction to hear Arbi....
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.
The High Court has jurisdiction to extend time for arbitration proceedings, provided the arbitrator was appointed by it, reflecting legislative intent requiring contextual interpretation of 'Court' i....
Once appointment of arbitrator or arbitral Tribunal has been made by High Court or Supreme Court exercising power under sub-sections (4), (5) and (6) of Section 11 then power to substitute arbitrator....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the term 'Court' in Section 29-A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 should be interpreted in the context of the power to appoint an....
The main legal point established is that the jurisdiction and applicability of Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 should be considered in the context of the appointing authorit....
The court clarified that applications for extending the mandate of an arbitral tribunal under Section 29A must be filed before the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction, not the High Court.
Jurisdiction for extending arbitration periods falls to District Courts under Section 29A(4) of the Arbitration Act, distinct from High Court powers under Section 11(6).
An application for extension of time to pass an arbitral award under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, requires the applicant to demonstrate 'sufficient cause' for the delay;....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.