Skip to main content

Talks of settlement would not affect the time limit set for arbitral award

Cause Title : M/s Raj Chawla And Co. Stock And Share Brokers vs M/s Nine Media And Information Services Ltd. & Anr., Delhi High Court, O.M.P. (T) (COMM.) 93/2022

Date of Judgment/Order : 30/1/2023

Corum : Yashwant Varma, J.

Citied: 

  1. Yashwith Constructions (P) Ltd. vs. Simplex Concrete Piles India Ltd.
  2. ONGC Petro Additions Limited vs. Ferns Construction Co. Inc.

Background

Due a dispute between the parties, an arbitration proceeding was commenced consequent to the issuance of a notice dated 04 March 2018 referable to Section 21 of the Arbitration Act. Based on the MOU between the parties, the Delhi High Court by an order dated 03.08.2018, constituted an Arbitral Tribunal by appointing a sole arbitrator which was to take effect after 01.09.2018 to give opportunity to the parties to arrive at a settlement. By an e mail of 25 .09.2021, the sole arbitrator taking cognizance of a statement of claim submitted by the petitioner, called upon parties to appear before it on 04.10.2021 for a preliminary hearing. The sole arbitrator cancelled the scheduled hearing and decided to convene on 21.10. 2021. The matter was adjourned and rescheduled for 22.11.2021. On 29.11.2021, the sole arbitrator chose to recuse herself from the proceedings. The present petition purporting to be under Section 15 of the Act thereafter came to be filed on or about 09 September 2022 seeking appointment of a substitute arbitrator.

Judgment

The High court observed that the learned counsels had contended that the date of 02.09.2018 may be viewed as the point of commencement of the arbitral proceedings. On that basis, the matter may be examined in light of Section 29A of the Arbitration Act as was originally introduced by virtue of Act 3 of 2016. In terms of the said provision, an award would have had to be pronounced within a period of twelve months from the date the Arbitral Tribunal had entered upon the reference. The period of twelve months when computed from 02 September 2018 would, undoubtedly, have expired on or about 01 September 2019. The petitioner forwarded a statement of claim for the first time on 16 September 2021. No effective proceedings were shown to have been drawn by the Arbitral Tribunal prior thereto. There has been obvious and significant delays.

The High Court held that that the question of substitution of an arbitrator would also not arise in light of the provisions contained in Section 23(4) read with Section 29A of the Act which came to be inserted in the Act by virtue of Act 3 of 2016 with retrospective effect from 23 October 2015, wherein it has been stipulated that the award shall be made within a period of twelve months from the date the arbitral tribunal enters upon the reference

The High Court rejected the plea of the petitioner that proceedings before the sole arbitrator were not pursued since parties were exploring the possibility of arriving at a settlement.

The High Court was of the considered view that talks of settlement could not have stopped the march of limitation prescribed by statute. It must be observed that the Act does not envisage proceedings in arbitration remaining in abeyance or a state of latency. Holding otherwise would clearly be contrary to the spirit of the Act and the expeditious dispute resolution process which stands visualised
thereunder. 

The High Court further observed that the aforesaid provision was thereafter amended in terms of Act 33 of 2019 which was enforced from 30 August 2019. If the validity of proceedings were to be viewed on the anvil of Section 29 A as it exists presently, the award would have had to be rendered within a period of twelve months from the date of completion of pleadings as per Section 24 (3). 

Firstly as the petitioners failed to communicate his statement of claim within the time prescribed by Section 23(4), then as per Section 25(3), the Arbitral Tribunal shall terminate proceedings. Further, as the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal was never extended within the period prescribed in sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 29 A, and the parties have also not petitioned the court for extension of the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal even thereafter and in accordance with Section 29 A (4), the question of a substitute arbitrator being appointed really does not arise. Therefore since not only had the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal come to an end, in the fitness of things, the proceedings should have been terminated in accordance with the mandatory provisions of the Act.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more