Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Ss. 29A(1), (3), (4), (5), (6), (8), (9), 34, 36 – Extension of mandate – Award passed after expiry of statutory period – Maintainability of application under S.29A(5) – Scope of Court’s power – Whether post-award extension permissible – Held: Yes.
A. Arbitration – Time limit for award – Post-expiry award – Effect
Paras 14–16, 23
Where arbitral award was rendered after expiry of 18 months (12 months under S.29A(1) + 6 months under S.29A(3)) and without Court extension:
Held:
-
Award rendered after expiry of mandate is unenforceable under S.36.
-
Such award is ineffective; need not be set aside under S.34.
-
However, unilateral act of arbitrator in passing award post-expiry does not denude Court of jurisdiction under S.29A.
B. S.29A(5) – Extension of mandate – Maintainability after award
Paras 2, 20–23
Issue: Whether Court can entertain application under S.29A(5) even after award is rendered post-expiry of statutory period?
Held:
(i) S.29A does not prescribe any threshold bar against post-award application.
(ii) Power of Court to extend mandate may be exercised before or after expiry of period under S.29A(1) or (3).
(iii) Expression “if an award is not made” in S.29A(4) does not bar post-award extension; it contextualises the Court’s power.
(iv) Application under S.29A(5) is maintainable even after award is passed beyond mandate period.
C. Nature of termination under S.29A(4)
Paras 17–18
Termination of mandate upon expiry of period is:
-
Conditional and transitory;
-
Subject to Court’s power of extension;
-
Not termination stricto sensu;
-
Designed to ensure discipline, not abort proceedings.
Legislative intent is to secure conclusion of arbitral proceedings, not frustrate them.
D. Scope of Court’s powers under S.29A
Paras 13 (I–X), 20, 23
Court’s powers include:
-
Extending time before or after expiry.
-
Granting extension on sufficient cause.
-
Imposing terms and conditions.
-
Reducing arbitrator’s fees (Proviso to S.29A(4)).
-
Imposing actual or exemplary costs (S.29A(8)).
-
Substituting one or all arbitrators (S.29A(6)) – discretionary.
Upon substitution, reconstituted tribunal continues from same stage (S.29A(7)).
E. Jurisdiction – Meaning of “Court”
Para 13(V), (X)
“Court” under S.29A means:
Civil Court of original jurisdiction under S.2(1)(e), and includes High Court exercising original civil jurisdiction.
It does not include High Court or Supreme Court under S.11(6).
F. Delay in award – Ground for setting aside
Para 13(VIII)
Mere delay in delivery of award is not ground to set aside.
Only when delay:
-
Is undue and unexplained;
-
Adversely affects findings;
may it conflict with public policy.
G. Constitutional perspective – Interpretation of dispute resolution statutes
Para 22
Court while interpreting statutory dispute resolution mechanisms must ensure remedy is:
-
Accessible
-
Affordable
-
Expeditious
-
Cohesive
RATIO DECIDENDI
-
Section 29A(5) permits extension of arbitrator’s mandate even after expiry of statutory period and even after award is rendered during such expired period.
-
Award rendered after expiry of mandate is unenforceable under Section 36, but does not automatically nullify Court’s jurisdiction to extend time.
-
Power under Section 29A(4)–(6) is independent, discretionary, and aimed at preserving arbitral process rather than terminating it.
-
Legislative intent behind Section 29A is to ensure timely conclusion of arbitration without defeating proceedings through technical lapses.
RESULT
Appeal allowed.
Application No. 5993 of 2024 restored.
High Court directed to decide S.29A application in accordance with principles laid down.
No comments:
Post a Comment