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 :
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.
3. As per the petition, on 15.12.2009, the appellant and the respondent entered into an a
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....
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....
The court may extend the mandate of an Arbitrator for sufficient cause, ensuring parties are not prejudiced by delays not attributable to them.
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 court ruled that extensions of time for arbitral proceedings are warranted when delays are not attributable to the parties, prioritizing efficiency and justice in the arbitration process.
The court emphasized that delays in arbitration due to administrative issues not attributable to the parties justify extending the arbitrator's mandate as per the provisions of the Arbitration and Co....
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
