Back
HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM
B ISWANATH SOMADDER, CJ, BHASKAR RAJ PRADHAN, J
Union of India, Represented by Chief Engineer, Project Swastik – Appellant
Versus
M/s Valecha Shivalaya – Interdril (JV) – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. legal nature of the arbitral award. (Para 1 , 3) |
| 2. parties' arguments on applicable amendments. (Para 2 , 6 , 12 , 14) |
| 3. court's assessment of consent and procedural amendments. (Para 4 , 7 , 10 , 11 , 19 , 20) |
| 4. clarification on the procedural nature of section amendments. (Para 18 , 21) |
| 5. final ruling overturning the commercial court's decision. (Para 22 , 23) |
JUDGMENT :
Bhaskar Raj Pradhan, J.
The learned Commercial Court at Gangtok, has set aside the arbitral award dated 23.02.2023 on the ground that the sole Arbitrator had become functus officio after the period provided under section 29(A)(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, the Arbitration Act) [as amended by the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 (for short, the 2015 Amendment)] was over and the arbitral award passed on 23.2.2023 was consequently non- est in law and unenforceable. The learned Commercial Court relied upon the judgment of the High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad in the matter of Roop Singh Bhatty vs. Shriram City Union Finance Limited, [2022 SCC OnLine TS 1049], in support of its opinion.
2. The Union of India is aggrieved by the impugned judgment and or
Arbitration awards must comply with current procedural amendments; pandemic delays affecting timeliness must be considered.
The scope for judicial intervention in arbitral awards is strictly limited to clear violations of public policy or patent illegality; mere procedural errors or delays do not warrant the award's setti....
Court extends arbitrator's mandate under Section 29A(5) for sufficient cause including clerical errors, procedural delays, pandemic effects not attributable to parties, ensuring logical conclusion of....
Arbitral award – In a domestic arbitration, there is mandatory period of twelve months for Arbitrator to render arbitral award – In contrast, period of twelve months would not be mandatory for an int....
Court extends arbitrator's mandate post-termination under Section 29A(5) for sufficient cause like procedural and administrative delays not attributable to petitioner, ensuring practical, expeditious....
Court may extend arbitrator's mandate under Section 29A(4),(5) post-termination for sufficient cause not attributable to petitioners, prioritizing pragmatic and effective arbitral conclusion.
The court may extend the mandate of an Arbitrator for sufficient cause, ensuring parties are not prejudiced by delays not attributable to them.
Court extends arbitrator mandate post-expiry under Sec 29A(4),(5) on sufficient cause like advanced proceedings, non-attributable delay, ensuring logical conclusion without petitioner fault.
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
