Will The Mandate Of The Tribunal Terminate Under Section 29A Unless Extended During Its Subsistence? Supreme Court To Examine

The Supreme Court is set to examine an important issue related to the arbitration law that whether the mandate of the tribunal terminates upon the expiry of the time provided under Section 29A unless extended during its subsistence. The bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and S.V.N. Bhatti has issued notice in an SLP filed against the order of the Calcutta High Court wherein the High Court held that the mandate of the arbitrator terminates upon the expiry of the time period provided under Section 29A unless it is extended during its subsistence. The High Court had held that in terms of Section 29-A(1) and an award shall be made by the arbitral tribunal within a period of 12 months from the date of completion of pleadings, further under sub-section (3), the parties may, by consent, extend the period by another 6 months. It held that in terms of Section 29(A)(4), the mandate of the tribunal stands terminated if it fails to make an award within the specified time period and any application seeking extension of time must be made during that period only and not afterwards. The High Court held that the mandate stands terminated upon the expiry of the specified period and it cannot be revived by making an application subsequently. It held that the mandate must be continuing at the time of making an application. It was held that a party could not be permitted under Section 29-A to make an application under subsection (4) for extending mandate of an arbitrator at any time after the mandate had expired, and that if the Court would empower itself to extend the aforesaid mandate, then “it would inevitably lead to breaching limits for making the award envisaged under Section 29-A.” Upon hearing the Counsel for the petitioner, the Apex Court issued notice and directed the parties to file written submissions. The Court listed the matter for final arguments and disposal on the next date of hearing. Case Title: Rohan Builders (India) Pvt Ltd v. Berger Paints India Limited, SLP(C) No. 23320 of 2023 Date: 17.10.2023 Counsels for the Petitioner: Mr. Nakul Dewan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Nirav Shah, Adv. Mr. Bhushan Panse, Adv. Mr. Soumil Jhanwar, Adv. Ms. Udita Singh, AOR Mr. Sarthak Chandrashekhar, Adv. Counsels for the Respondent: Mr. Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Sr. Adv. Mr. Udayaditya Banerjee, Adv. Mr. Samrat Sengupta, Adv. Mr. Parag Chaturvedi, Adv. Mr. Raghav Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Dhruv Sharma, Adv. Ms. Shreya Bhojnagarwala, Adv. Mr. Soumya Dutta, AOR Mr. Siddhant Upmanyu, Adv. Click Here To Read/Download Order

Will The Mandate Of The Tribunal Terminate Under Section 29A Unless Extended During Its Subsistence? Supreme Court To Examine

ausaf ayyub

Tags