Courts Can Extend Time For Passing An Arbitral Award Even Though It Is Already Passed, Provided There Is Sufficient Cause: Kerala HC
The Kerala High Court held that a court has the power to extend the time for passing an arbitral award even after the award had already been passed, provided there is sufficient cause.
The Court explained that Section 29A(3) and (4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the Act) provides that there can be an application for extension either before or after the time provided for termination of the proceedings had elapsed if there was a “real and proper reason to do so.”
A Single Bench of Justice Anu Sivaraman observed, “It is also pertinent to note that if an application is made under Section 29A (5) of the Act for extension of time either before or after the expiry of the mandate then the 2nd proviso to Section 29A(4) of the Act provides that the mandate of the arbitrator shall continue till the disposal of the said application. A reading of Section 32 would also make it clear that the termination of the mandate of the arbitrator and the termination of the proceedings on a final arbitral award being passed are not absolute and are also subject to Section 33 and Sub-section 4 of Section 44 of the Act.”
Sr. Advocate T. Krishnanunni represented the petitioner, while Advocate M. Gopikrishnan Nambiar appeared for the respondents.
A petition was filed under Section 34 of the Act after the arbitral award was passed claiming the award was non est in law as it was passed after the termination of the arbitral tribunal's mandate. Thereafter, applications were filed arguing that the arbitral tribunal had passed the award without noticing that the deadline had expired.
The Court had to determine whether an application for extension of time for passing an arbitral award could be considered after the said award had already been passed under Section 29A(4) of the Act.
RKEC Projects Limited (petitioner) had filed the application for extension arguing that the arbitral tribunal had passed the award without recognising that the time had expired. However, Cochin Port Trust (respondent) argued that the application for extension could only have been made before the award was passed and not afterwards.
After a plain reading of Section 29A of the Act to determine whether an extension could be granted after the award had been rendered, the Court held that the termination of the mandate of the arbitrator under Section 32 of the Act was not absolute and was subject to the provisions of Section 29A(3) and (4). “The said termination can only be read to be subject to the powers of extension of the mandate as provided under Section 29A(3) and (4) of the Act.”
Accordingly, the Court held, “In the instant case, I am of the opinion that the intervention of the Covid period and the reasons which are stated in the I.A are sufficient to extend the time for passing the award.”
Cause Title: RKEC Projects Limited v. The Cochin Port Trust & Anr.
Appearance:
Petitioner: Sr. Advocate T. Krishnanunni; Advocates Jaykar K.S., V.S. Robin, G. Balu, M. Ramya Ramachandran, and K.G. Jayaprakash Narayanan
Respondents: Advocates M. Gopikrishnan Nambiar, K. John Mathai, Joson Manavalan, Kuryan Thomas and Paulose C. Abraham
