Arbitration Cases Half Yearly Digest: January To June 2024

Supreme Court High Court Not Having Original Civil Jurisdiction Cannot Extend Time To Pass Arbitral Award As Per S.29A(4) Arbitration Act : Supreme Court Case Title: CHIEF ENGINEER (NH) PWD (ROADS) VERSUS M/S BSC & C and C JV Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 425 The Supreme Court held that a High Court which does not have original civil jurisdiction does not have the power to extend the time limit for passing of the arbitral award as per Section 29A of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act 1996 (“Act”). The bench comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan clarified that as per the mandate of Section 29A (4) of the Act, the power to extend the time limit for passing of the arbitral award vests within the principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction, but there is no impediment for the High Court who is exercising the ordinary original civil jurisdiction to extend the time limit. Arbitrator's Power Under Section 32(2)(c) Can Be Exercised Only If Continuation Of Proceedings Has Become Unnecessary Or Impossible: Supreme Court Case Title: Dani Wooltex Corporation & Ors. vs SheilProperties Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Case Number: CIVIL APPEAL NO.6462 OF 2024 The Supreme Court bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Pankaj Mithal held that the power under Section 32(2)(c) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 can be exercised only if, for some reason, the continuation of proceedings has become unnecessary or impossible. The bench held that the mere existence of a reason for terminating the proceedings is not sufficient. The reason must be such that the continuation of the proceedings has become unnecessary or impossible. Court Doesn't Sit In Appeal Over Arbitral Tribunal's Interpretation Of Contract : Supreme Court Case Title : National Highway Authority of India v. M/s Hindustan Construction Company Ltd Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 361 The Supreme Court held that it is for the Arbitral Tribunal to adjudicate upon the construction of the terms of a contract and the Court under Section 34, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 does not sit in appeal over the findings of the arbitrator Court May Refuse To Appoint Arbitral Tribunal If S.11(6) Petition Is Barred By Limitation Or Claim Is Ex-Facie Time Barred : Supreme Court Case Title: M/s Arif Azim Co. Ltd. Versus M/s Aptech Ltd., ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 29 OF 2023 In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court held that the Limitation Act, 1963 is applicable to proceedings for appointment of arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ("A&C Act"), and a Court may refuse to make a reference if the claims, on the date of commencement of arbitration proceedings, are ex-facie barred. "...there is no doubt as to the applicability of the Limitation Act, 1963 to arbitration proceedings in general and that of Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to a petition under Section 11(6) of the Act, 1996 in particular", said the Bench of CJI DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala, Manoj Misra. Parliament Should Consider Amending Arbitration Act To Prescribe Limitation Period To File S.11 Application : Supreme Court Case Details: M/S Arif Azim Co Ltd v. M/S Aptech Ltd. Arbitration Petition No. 29 of 2023 In a recent verdict, the Supreme Court delved into the crucial question of whether the Limitation Act, 1963 is applicable to applications for the appointment of arbitrators under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The court highlighted the absence of a statutory prescription regarding the time limit for such applications and expressed concerns about the unduly long three-year period allowed for filing under Article 137 of the Limitation Act. While recognizing the legislative vacuum, the court urged Parliament to consider amending the Act to prescribe a specific limitation period for filing applications under Section 11(6). The decision emphasized the need for expeditious resolution of commercial disputes and addressed the potential impact of the absence of a time-bound framework. General Reference Won't Have Effect Of Incorporating Arbitration Clause In Another Contract, Specific Reference Needed : Supreme Court Case Title: NBCC (INDIA) LIMITED VERSUS ZILLION INFRA PROJECTS PVT.LTD. Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 246 The Supreme Court reiterated that a dispute cannot be referred to arbitration based on the arbitration clause contained in another contract unless a specific reference was made in the main contract to incorporate the arbitration clause into the main contract. Reversing the findings of the High Court, the Bench Comprising Justices B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta held that unless a specific reference is made in the main contract to incorporate the arbitration clause of another contract then the parties are bound to settle their dispute through the mode of settlement agreed ...

Arbitration Cases Half Yearly Digest: January To June 2024

Rajesh Kumar

Tags