Supreme Court Annual Digest 2024 [Arbitration And Conciliation Act]

Section 33 - Although the Arbitral Tribunal becomes functus officio after passing an award, it would still retain the limited jurisdiction to clarify or correct errors in an award. North Delhi Municipal Corporation v. S.A. Builders Ltd., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1010Section 11 (6) - Arbitration clause - Interpretation - Pro-arbitration approach - Mutual Consent - Validity and interpretation of arbitration clause - The Supreme Court examined the arbitration clause in the Deed of Partnership dated 16.07.2016, which provided for disputes to be referred to arbitration. The clause stated arbitration as "optional" and required mutual consent for appointing an arbitrator. The Court held that the clause cannot be interpreted as making arbitration contingent solely upon mutual agreement at the time of the dispute. Instead, the clause reflects the intention of the parties to resolve disputes through arbitration. Tarun Dhameja v. Sunil Dhameja, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 996Section 11 (6) - Non-Arbitrable Disputes - Payment of Wages and Industrial Disputes - Termination of Employment - Non-Disclosure Obligations - Abuse of Process - The appellant challenged the appointment of an arbitrator by the High Court on grounds that the dispute concerning his termination and non-payment of wages was governed by the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, and the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The respondent had terminated the appellant's employment, citing absenteeism during the COVID-19 pandemic, and later initiated arbitration proceedings despite ongoing statutory remedies sought by the appellant. Whether the dispute involving non-payment of wages and termination of employment is arbitrable. Whether the High Court's appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act was appropriate given the pending statutory remedies. Held, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order appointing an arbitrator, holding that the disputes concerning non-payment of wages and termination were non-arbitrable as they fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of statutory authorities under the Payment of Wages Act and Industrial Disputes Act. The claim of a violation of the non-disclosure obligations was not substantiated by the respondent during initial disciplinary actions, making it an afterthought. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, dismissing the petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The appellant was awarded costs of Rs. 5 lakhs, payable within three months. Dushyant Janbandhu v. Hyundai AutoEver India Pvt. Ltd., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 981Section 34 - Condonation of delay - Liberal interpretation - The appellant's land was acquired under the National Highways Act, 1956. The appellant filed an appeal before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana, which was later dismissed as barred by limitation under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The appellant sought condonation of the period from 20.10.2011 to 20.01.2012 under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Whether the period from 20.10.2011 to 20.01.2012 should be excluded under Section 14 of the Limitation Act while calculating the limitation period for filing objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Held, Section 14 of the Limitation Act, which provides for the exclusion of the time spent in bona fide legal proceedings, applies to proceedings under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Court emphasized a liberal interpretation of limitation provisions to secure the limited remedies available under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration Act. The Court allowed the exclusion of the period from 20.10.2011 to 23.02.2012, thereby restoring the Section 34 petition for reconsideration. The appeals were allowed, and the judgment of the High Court and the order of the District Judge were set aside. The Section 34 petition was restored to its original number for fresh adjudication. Kirpal Singh v. Government of India, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 970Section 29A (4) and (5) – Extension of Arbitral Tribunal's Mandate – Sufficient Cause - Whether an application for extension of the mandate of an Arbitral Tribunal can be filed after the expiry of the statutory period under Section 29A(4). Whether the facts and circumstances of the case justify the extension of the mandate. Held, under Section 29A(4) of the Act the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal can be extended either prior to or after the expiry of the statutory period. The provision explicitly empowers the court to grant an extension even after the Tribunal's mandate has expired. On examining the facts, including the exclusion of the limitation period due to the COVID-19 pandemic as per the Court's earlier orders (In re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, (2022) 3 SCC 117), the Court found sufficient cause for granting an extension. The extension of time under Section 29A(5) is discretionary and contingent upon showing sufficient cause, which must align...

Supreme Court Annual Digest 2024 [Arbitration And Conciliation Act]

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Supreme Court Annual Digest 2024 [Arbitration And Conciliation Act]

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers