Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 67485
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N. ANAND VENKATESH, J
S.V.Saranya – Appellant
Versus
Supreme Foundation Partnership Firm – Respondent
A.No.4404 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.A.Ramesh Manikandan
For the Respondents: Mrs.Vedavalli Kumar
The court ruled that extensions under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act are aimed at facilitating effective dispute resolution, even if the claimant withdraws.
Headnote:(A) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 29A - Extension of time for arbitration proceedings - Application for extension was made by applicant despite claimant's withdrawal request - Court highlighted that extension should promote effective dispute resolution as per the principles from Supreme Court rulings. (Paras 5, 6, 7)
(B) Court's Role - Scope of application under Section 29A is limited to facilitating dispute resolution - Consistent view of courts mandates granting such extensions to ensure proceedings are completed efficiently. (Paras 5, 7)
Facts of the case:
The applicant seeks an extension of six months to complete arbitration proceedings, contending the counterclaim must be heard despite the claimant's withdrawal.
Findings of Court:
The time is extended for six months, expecting cooperation from both parties, with no further extensions granted.
Issues: Whether the request for extending the arbitration period is justified given the claimant’s withdrawal.
Ratio Decidendi: The extension of time under Section 29A is aimed at effective dispute resolution, upheld by supreme court precedent establishing that such applications are maintainable even post the prescribed period.
Result: Extension of time granted for six months.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. application for extension despite withdrawal. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. court's role in facilitating dispute resolution. (Para 5) |
| 3. scope of adjudication under section 29a. (Para 6 , 7) |
O R D E R
This application has been filed under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 , seeking for extension of time for the completion of the arbitration proceedings between the applicant and the respondents.
2. The 6th respondent has filed a detailed counter affidavit and has brought to the notice of this Court that the 6th respondent, who was the claimant, sought withdrawal of the claim and in spite of the same, the said request was rejected and that the 6th respondent is not interested in prosecuting the claim any more.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the 6th respondent submitted that if the claimant is not interested in prosecuting the claim, no useful purpose will be served in extending the period for the completion of the arbitration proceedings.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has made counterclaim and therefore, even if the claimant does not want to prosecute the claim, that will not result in the automatic closure of the proceedings and the counterclaim has to be considered by the learned Arbitrator.
5. In the considered view of this Court, the scope of an application under Section 29A of the Act is very limited. The Apex Court, in the case ofM/s.Ajay Protech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. General Manager & Another reported in(2024) SCC OnLine SC 3381, has held that the Court must only facilitate an effective dispute resolution and should not obstruct it.
6. The liberal interpretation given to Section 29A application was further reiterated in the case ofRohan Builders (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Berger Paints India Ltd. reported in(2024) SCC OnLine SC 2494 , wherein, the Apex Court went to the extent of saying that such an application is maintainable, even after the prescribed period is over. Therefore, the consistent view of the Apex Court is that only in rare cases, such extension of time should not be granted and normally, the Court must ensure that the time is extended for facilitating the effective dispute resolution.
7. In the considered view of this Court, the scope of adjudication in an application under Section 29A is very limited. The Court must only see if the extension of time will facilitate in the effective dispute resolution between the parties. Considering the claim and counterclaim made by both the parties and also considering the fact that this is the second instance, where the parties have approached this Court seeking extension of time, this Court is inclined to extend the time for a period of six months. This Court expects both the parties to co-operate for the completion of the proceedings within the extended time. It is made clear that no further extension of time will be granted by this Court. The above direction issued by this Court will not stand in the way of both the parties raising all their grounds to workout their remedy in the manner known to law.
This application is disposed of in the above terms.
