Timeline Prescribed For Filing Statement Of Defence Under Rule 18(3) Of Indian Council Of Arbitration Rules Is Directory In Nature: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Manoj Jain has held that the timeline prescribed under Indian Council of Arbitration Rules, 2024 for filing a Statement of Defence by the respondent is directory in nature and can be extended by the Arbitral Tribunal if a sufficient cause is established. The Petitioner challenges an order passed by the Arbitral Tribunal by which it declined to accept the request of the petitioner to close the respondent's rights to file a statement of defence or counterclaim. The petitioner submitted that as per Rule 18(3) of the Domestic Commercial Arbitration of the Indian Council of Arbitration (in short “ICA” Rules) 2024, any respondent was entitled to initial period of 30 days for submitting its statement of defence (SoD), extendable by another period not exceeding thirty days. It was further argued that there was never any agreement between the parties for further extension of time and, therefore, learned Tribunal was not competent to grant any further extension and to condone any delay beyond the scope of said Rule 18(a). The Court noted that a careful perusal of the impugned order, it becomes clear that the Arbitral Tribunal believed that it had jurisdiction to extend the timelines in the interest of justice. While acknowledging the timelines prescribed by the ICA Rules, it held that the time can be extended if a sufficient cause is shown. The Arbitral Tribunal also noted that the cases cited by the claimant relate to statutory provisions whereas the timelines in the present case emerge from the ICA Rules, not any specific legislation. The court, while agreeing with the findings of the Arbitral Tribunal, held that procedural rules are to guide, not bind. The Arbitral Tribunal is not powerless when it comes to extending timelines prescribed under procedural rules, provided sufficient cause is shown. Rules are procedural in nature and meant to serve the cause of justice, not obstruct it. A liberal interpretation is vital for ensuring the efficacy of the Arbitral Process. Accordingly, the present petition was dismissed. Case Title: ANEJA CONSTRUCTIONS (INDIA) versus DOOSAN POWER SYSTEMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANR.Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 980 Case Number: CM(M) 1419/2025 & CM APPL. 46709-46710/2025 Order Date: 06/08/2025 Click Here To Read/Download Order

Timeline Prescribed For Filing Statement Of Defence Under Rule 18(3) Of Indian Council Of Arbitration Rules Is Directory In Nature: Delhi HC

Mohd Malik Chauhan

Tags