Application for extension of time period for passing an arbitral award u/s 29A(4) read with Section 29A(5) is maintainable even after Expiry of 12 month: Delhi HC
An application for extension of the time period for passing an arbitral award under Section 29A(4) read with Section 29A(5) is maintainable even after the expiry of the twelve-month or the extended six-month period.
The Delhi High Court observed that an application for extension of the time period for passing an arbitral award under Section 29A(4) read with Section 29A(5) is maintainable even after the expiry of the twelve-month or the extended six-month period. These Petitions under Section 29A(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, have been filed by the Petitioners seeking...
The Delhi High Court observed that an application for extension of the time period for passing an arbitral award under Section 29A(4) read with Section 29A(5) is maintainable even after the expiry of the twelve-month or the extended six-month period.
These Petitions under Section 29A(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, have been filed by the Petitioners seeking extension of the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal.In four arbitration petitions constituted an Arbitral Tribunal to adjudicate the disputes between the parties.
It is stated that one of the parties, namely, Shipra Estate Limited, the Petitioner is now undergoing CIRP proceedings. Material on record indicates that after the application was admitted by the NCLT, the matter travelled to NCLAT. The NCLAT held that the Appellant has reached out to the FinancialCreditor and settlement is likely to take place. The CoC has already been constituted. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code. It was held that in the meantime, no further steps shall be taken in pursuance of the impugned order.
Want a deeper insight into the Income Tax Bill, 2025? Click here
The Petitioners are not facing CIRP proceedings.It is the case of the Respondents that petitioner has not been filed by the Resolution Professional and, therefore, it is not maintainable. On the other hand, it is the case of the Petitioner that since the Statement of Claims are intrinsically linked with each other, they have to be considered together. It is also stated that the effect of the NCLAT order, to what extent the SOCs are interlinked etc. can be looked into by the Arbitrator.
The Court does not find any impediment in the mandate of the Arbitrator being extended.It is stated that the mandate of the Arbitrator came to an end on 03.09.2023 and since then, the matter has been hanging in the Court only on the ground that an Order has been passed by the NCLAT stating that further steps will not be taken in pursuance of the impugned order.
How to Audit Public Charitable Trusts under the Income Tax Act Click Here
The Apex Court in Rohan Builders (India) Private Limited v. Berger Paints India Limited, 2024 has held that an application for extension of the time period for passing an arbitral award under Section 29A(4) read with Section 29A(5) is maintainable even after the expiry of the twelve-month or the extended six-month period, as the case may be.
The Arbitrator is requested to consider the effect of the Order dated 21.02.2024 passed by the NCLAT to decide as to whether the matter should proceed further or not. The Arbitrator is also requested to consider the effect of one of the parties undergoing CIRP proceedings in light of the fact that the Statement of Claims are intrinsically linked with each other.
Though applications under Order I Rule 10 of the CPC have been filed by ARCIL, the Justice Subramonium Prasad refused to consider the said applications and held open for the applicant to move an appropriate application for impleadment before the Arbitrator and it is for the Arbitrator to decide as to whether ARCIL is required to be impleaded in the arbitration proceedings or not.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscanpremium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
