SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, CJI., PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, J.
TATA Sons Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly TATA Sons Ltd.) – Petitioner
Versus
Siva Industries and Holdings Ltd. and Others – Respondents
Miscellaneous Application No. 2680 of 2019, Arbitration Case (Civil) No. 38 of 2017
Decided On : 05-01-2023
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 29A(1) – Arbitral award – Prescribed time – Extension of time – Intent of Parliament is that period of twelve months for making award is not mandatory in case of an international commercial arbitration – In an international commercial arbitration, arbitral tribunal is required to endeavour to render arbitral award within a period of twelve months or in a timely manner – In a domestic arbitration, Section 29A(1) stipulates a mandatory period of twelve months for Arbitrator to render arbitral award – In contrast, substantive part of Section 29A(1) clarifies that period of twelve months would not be mandatory for an international commercial arbitration – Post amendment, time limit of twelve months as prescribed in Section 29A is applicable to only domestic arbitrations and twelve-month period is only directory in nature for an international commercial arbitration – If award is not made within period which is specified in sub-section (1) or extended period specified in sub-section (3), mandate of Arbitrator shall terminate unless court has extended period either prior to or after expiry of period so specified – In terms of amended provisions of Section 29A, arbitral tribunals in international commercial arbitrations are only expected to make endeavour to complete proceedings within twelve months from date of competition of pleadings and are not bound to abide by time limit prescribed for domestic arbitrations – Provisions of Section 29A, as introduced by Act 3 of 2016, were prospective in nature by virtue of Section 26 of 2015 Amendment Act – Removal of mandatory time limit for making arbitral award in case of an international commercial arbitration does not confer any rights or liabilities on any party. (Paras 25, 26, 29, 31 and 34)
Facts of the case:
Submission which has been urged on behalf of the applicant is that as a result of amendment of Section 29A by Act 33 of 2019, the period of 12 months prescribed for making an award from the date of the completion of the pleadings has ceased to apply to an international commercial arbitration. Hence, it has been urged that the amendment being of a procedural nature, the amended provision would apply to the arbitral proceedings in the present case following the appointment of Justice S N Variava on 17 January 2018 and pursuant to the arbitrator entering upon reference on 14th February 2018. Alternatively, applicant has urged that in the event that this Court were to hold that the amended provisions of Section 29A are inapplicable to the present arbitration, a further extension of time may be granted to the sole arbitrator to complete arbitral proceedings.
Findings of Court:
Consistent with the amended provisions of Section 29A, sole arbitrator in present case would be acting within his domain and jurisdiction to decide upon any further extension of time beyond what is originally stipulated at the meeting which was held on 21st March 2018. Sole arbitrator may issue appropriate procedural directions for extension of time while at the same time endeavouring an expeditious conclusion of arbitration.
Result : Miscellaneous Application and Interlocutory Application allowed.
JUDGMENT :
DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, CJI.
1. The applicant Tata Sons Pvt. Ltd. is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act 1913. The first respondent, Siva Industries and Holdings Ltd. is a company incorporated under the Companies Act 1956 with a registered office at Chennai. The second respondent, C. Sivasankaran, who is the promoter of the first respondent is a resident of Seychelles.
2. The applicant, the first respondent and Tata Tele Services Ltd.1 [“TTSL”] executed a share subscription agreement on 24 February 2006 for the issuance and allotment of shares of TTSL to Siva Industries in accordance with its terms and conditions.
3. Subsequently, a share subscription agreement dated 12 November 2008 was entered into between NTT Docomo Inc2 [“Docomo”] a company incorporated in Japan, the applicant and TTSL. In terms of the agreement, Docomo sought to acquire 26% of the equity share holding of TTSL through a combination of primary shares (fresh shares issued and allotted by TTSL) and secondary shares (shares held by certain existing shareholders of TTSL).
4. The first respondent was an existing shareholder of TTSL and was invited to participate in the sale of secondary shares to Docomo. Accordingly, Docomo and the first respondent executed a secondary share purchase agreement dated 3 March 2009 in terms of which Docomo acquired 20.740 million equity shares of TTSL from the first respondent. The applicant, TTSL and Docomo executed a Shareholders’ Agreement dated 25 March 2009 to record the terms and conditions of the understanding between the parties regarding the rights, obligations and duties with respect to Docomo’s ownership of shares of TTSL. Thereafter, the applicant, TTSL and the respondents executed an Inter se agreement. The agreement, inter-alia, obliged the respondents to purchase the TTSL shares on a pro-rata basis in the event Docomo exercised its sale option under the Shareholder’s Agreement.
5. Docomo addressed a sale notice on 7 July 2014 to the applicant while invoking its sale option under clause 5.7 of the Shareholder’s Agreement dated 25 March 2009.
6. Disputes having arisen between the applicant and Docomo, the latter invoked arbitration against the applicant under the Rules of the London Council for International Arbitration. A three-member Tribunal made its award dated 22 June 2016, consequent upon which the applicant was called upon to make payment to Docomo and to acquire the shares of TTSL which were put by Docomo.
7. Thereupon, the applicant called upon the first respondent under the Inter se agreement to proportionately pay for and acquire back its shareholdings in TTCL from Docomo. Under the terms of the Inter se agreement, the second respondent, as promoter of the first respondent company, had agreed to be liable to the applicant in the event that the first respondent failed to fulfill its obligation.
8. The applicant issued a notice of arbitration on 15 June 2017 to the first respondent and to the second respondent (a foreign party, being a resident of Seychelles) under Clause 10 of the Inter se agreement and nominated an arbitrator. Clause 10 states that the Arbitration shall be at Mumbai and Mumbai Courts have exclusive jurisdiction. The number of arbitrators is fixed as three by the Clause.
9. The respondents did not appoint their nominee arbitrator despite the service of the arbitration notice. The applicant filed a petition before this Court under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 19963 [“Arbitration Act”] for the constitution of an arbitral tribunal in an international commercial arbitration. The Supreme Court had exclusive jurisdiction to entertain the arbitration petition since the proposed arbitration between the applicant and the respondents, of whom the second respondent is a foreign party, was an international commercial arbitration in terms of Section 2(1)(
Board of Control for Cricket in India v. Kochi Cricket Pvt. Ltd
Thirumalai Chemicals Ltd v. Union of India (2011) 6 SCC 739 – Relied [Para 33]
Jose Da Costa and Anr. v. Bascora Sadasiva Sinai Narcornim
Gurbachan Singh v. Satpal Singh (1990) 1 SCC 445 – Relied [Para 33]
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....
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....
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 jurisdiction to extend time for arbitration proceedings, provided the arbitrator was appointed by it, reflecting legislative intent requiring contextual interpretation of 'Court' i....
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;....
The Court may extend the mandate of an arbitral tribunal even without consent from all parties if justified by sufficient cause, emphasizing the importance of continuity in arbitration proceedings.
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.