Single Judge extended time for the Arbitral Tribunal to make an award by six months under Section 29A(5) of the Arbitration Act, noting the dispute was not contested and intervening litigation justified the delay.
Time for the Arbitral Tribunal to make an award in Arbitration Case No.9 of 2020 extended by six months upto 23.12.2022.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Application No.1648 of 2022 in O.P.No.331 of 2020
Application No.1648 of 2022 in
O.P.No.331 of 2020
M.SUNDAR.,J
Captioned application has been filed in this Court on 28.03.2022 under Section 29A(5) of 'The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act No.26 of 1996)', which shall hereinafter be referred to as 'A and C Act' for the sake of convenience, with a prayer for extension of period for making an arbitral award by the Hon'ble Arbitral Tribunal.
between the parties; that this agreement is inter alia for purchase of business assets (hereinafter 'primary contract' for the sake of convenience and clarity); that clause 5 of the primary contract constituted by Clauses 5.1 and 5.2 serves as arbitration agreement; that arbitral disputes erupted between the parties inter alia turning on breach of certain conditions of primary contract; that the parties came to this Court by way of O.P.No.331 of 2020 under Section 11 of A and C Act with a prayer for appointment of a sole Arbitrator; that a Hon'ble single Judge of this Court appointed Hon'ble Mr.Justice K.Venkataraman, a
1/9
Application No.1648 of 2022 in O.P.No.331 of 2020
former Judge of this Court as sole Arbitrator (hereinafter 'AT' denoting 'Arbitral Tribunal') in and by an order dated 02.09.2020; that first sitting of AT was on 01.10.2020; that the pleadings before AT were completed on 30.11.2020; that the respondent in the captioned matter filed a Civil Revision Petition being C.R.P (MD) No.1881 of 2021 on 21.10.2021 in the Madurai Bench of this Hon'ble Court assailing an order dated 23.09.2021 made by AT in I.A.No.1 of 2021 in Arbitration Case No.9 of 2020; that C.R.P (MD) No.1881 of 2021 was disposed of by a Hon'ble single Judge in the Madurai Bench of this Court in and by order dated 28.02.2022; that respondent before this Court filed a Review Application in Rev.Aplc(MD) No.63 of 2022 and the review application came to be disposed of by the same Hon'ble Judge in and by order dated 29.03.2022; that captioned application has been filed before this Court on 28.03.2022 as already alluded to supra.
2/9
Application No.1648 of 2022 in O.P.No.331 of 2020
3/9
Application No.1648 of 2022 in O.P.No.331 of 2020
his contention, learned Senior counsel pressed into service a judgement of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Sukhbir Singh Vs. Hindustain Petroleum Corporation Ltd., reported in 2020 SCC OnLine Del 228 penned by a Hon'ble single Judge of Delhi High Court.
4/9
Application No.1648 of 2022 in O.P.No.331 of 2020
extending or enlargement of time under sub-section (5) puts one party at some kind of disadvantage. This expression cannot be stretched to give directives to AT while extending time. As regards Sukhbir Singh case law, a careful perusal of the facts makes it clear that it was a case where the AT had refused i.e., declined petitioner's request for an opportunity to cross-examine a witness. This factual matrix is vastly nay completely different from the case on hand. It is factually distinguishable and in any event it is an order of another Hon'ble High Court (not that of a coordinate Bench) which at best has only persuasive value.
Relevant paragraph in Padma Sundara Rao case law is paragraph 9 and the same reads as follows:
' 9. Courts should not place reliance on decisions without discussing as to how the factual situation fits in with the fact situation of the decision on which reliance is placed. There is always peril in treating the words of a speech or judgment as though they are words in a legislative enactment, and it is to be remembered that judicial utterances are made in the setting of the
5/9
Application No.1648 of 2022 in O.P.No.331 of 2020
facts of a particular case, said Lord Morris in Herrington v. British Railways Board [(1972) 2 WLR 537 : 1972 AC 877 (HL) [Sub nom British Railways Board v. Herrington, (1972) 1 All ER 749 (HL)]] . Circumstantial flexibility, one additional or different fact may make a world of difference between conclusions in two cases.'
Therefore, Sukhbir Singh case law does not come to the aid of the applicant in the case on hand.
6/9
Application No.1648 of 2022 in O.P.No.331 of 2020
counsel submitted that there may be a directive to AT to resort to Fast Track procedure adumbrated in Section 29B of A and C Act. This Court is of the considered view that this cannot be done for three reasons. One reason is, this would be completely outside the scope of captioned application which is under Section 29A(5) of A and C Act. The second reason is Section 29B is extension of party autonomy and Section 29B is an enabling provision which enables the parties to agree in writing to resort to Fast Track proceedings. The third reason is Fast Track procedure as would be evident from the four subclauses in sub-section (3) will inter-alia be a procedure where the matter will be decided on written pleadings, documents and submissions without oral hearing. In the case on hand evidence itself is being let in and therefore, absent consent between the parties, this Court cannot give such a directive. As regards the order made by Hon'ble Ladyship in the Civil Revision Petition and Review, though obvious, that being an order made by a Coordinate Bench i.e., another Hon'ble single Judge of this Court that would remain untouched and would obviously govern the proceedings and it is not for this Court to express any opinion or view on the same.
7/9
Application No.1648 of 2022 in O.P.No.331 of 2020
six months from today. In other words, time is extended upto 23.12.2022
(Friday).
Captioned application ordered on above terms.
23.06.2022
gpa
8/9
Application No.1648 of 2022 in O.P.No.331 of 2020
M.SUNDAR.J.,
gpa
Application No.1648 of 2022 in O.P.No.331 of 2020
23.06.2022
9/9
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the application for extension of time under Section 29A(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was premature.
Whether the Court could impose terms or directives on the Arbitral Tribunal while granting an extension of time under Section 29A(5).
Whether the Court could direct the Arbitral Tribunal to adopt the Fast Track procedure under Section 29B of the Act.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sukhbir Singh Vs. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.Distinguished¶27
_Sukhbir Singh Vs. Hindustain Petroleum Corporation Ltd._, reported in _2020 SCC OnLine Del 228_
Padma Sundara Rao Vs. State of Tamil NaduRelied on¶28
_Padma Sundara Rao Vs. State of Tamil Nadu_ reported in _(2002) 3 SCC 533_ · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 1 enactments
Respondent-O.P.No.331 of 2020
Applicant-O.P.No.331 of 2020
M.SUNDAR.
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
