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

2016 Supreme(Ker) 1343

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
S.P. Chaly, J.
Jacob Mathew - Appellant
Vs.
P.T.C. Builders and Ors. - Respondent
I.A. No. 51 of 2017 and A.R. No. 39 of 2015
Decided On : 27-10-2017

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : V. Philip Mathew and Gibi C. George
For the Respondent: Saji Varghese

Headnote:Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, Ss. 29A & 21 - Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act 2015 - Postponement or delay is not mandatory if the proceedings has started before the introduction of the Section 29A, as also held under the Section 21 of the principal Act is valid.

ORDER :

S.P. Chaly, J.

1. This arbitration request was disposed of by appointing an Arbitrator on 10/08/2016. The above I.A. is filed by the petitioner submitting that, the Arbitrator did not pass the award within the one year period prescribed as per the provisions of Amendment Act, 2015 and therefore, extension of time as prescribed under 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is required. Section 29A of Act, 1996 was brought to force only w.e.f. 23/10/2015. It is evident from Section 26 of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 that, nothing contained in the Amendment Act shall apply to the arbitration proceedings Commenced in accordance with the provisions of Section 21 of the principal Act before the commencement of the Amendment Act unless the parties otherwise agree. But the Amendment Act shall apply in relation to arbitral proceedings commenced on or after the date of commencement of the Amendment Act. Section 21 of the Act stipulates that unless otherwise agreed by the parties, the arbitral proceedings in respect of a particular dispute commence on the date on which a request for the dispute to be referred to arbitration is received by the respondent. In the case on hand the request is dated 22/12/2014 and therefore, it is apparent that, the commencement of the proceedings is prior to the date of coming into force of Section 29A of Act, 1996. There is no contract by and between the parties in contradistinction to the statutory provision. Therefore, in my considered opinion, extension of time as is sought for by the petitioner is not required. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that, the arbitrator has already passed an award.

2. Reckoning the law and appreciating the fact circumstances, it is clear that, the interlocutory application filed seeking extension of time is an inconsequential one. Therefore, I close the I.A. holding that, since the proceedings have started as provided under Section 21 of the principal Act, 1996 before the commencement of the provisions of Section 29A, no extension is required. The I.A. is disposed of 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