HC Which Passed Orders In Application U/S 11(6) A & C Act Has Jurisdiction To Extend Mandate Of Arbitral Tribunal: Meghalaya HC
The Meghalaya High Court observed that it has jurisdiction to pass orders for extension of the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal, under Section 29 A (4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 as it had passed orders in an application filed under Section 11(6) of the Act.
The bench of Justice H.S. Thangkhiew observed, “as the High Court had passed orders in an Section 11(6) application, namely (Arb. P. No. 1 of 2021 in the case of BSCPL Infrastructure Ltd. vs. The Addl. Chief Engineer, P.W.D. (Roads), Western Zone), this Court will have the jurisdiction to pass orders for extension of the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal, under Section 29 A (4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.”
Advocate K. Ch. Gautam appeared for the Appellant and Advocate A.S. Pandey appeared for the Respondent.
Brief Facts-
The petitioner BSCPL Infrastructure Limited had earlier approached the High Court with an application under Section 11(4) & (6) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 for the appointment of Arbitrators. The Court directed the nominees appointed by the petitioner and the respondent to decide on the presiding arbitrator. The hearings could not be completed within the time provided and the mandate was then extended by the Arbitral Tribunal, for another 6 months with the consent of the parties.
The Court relied on the decision in Chief Engineer (NH) PWD (Roads) vs. M/s BSC&C and C JV and quoted, “A contextual interpretation of the term ‘Court’ as given in the Act, will therefore involve analyzing the facts of the case, the legislative intent to understand its purpose and its application, whereas textual interpretation on the other hand, focuses solely on the language of the provision itself. Balancing both approaches, therefore, will ensure the comprehensive application of the provisions’ meaning and intent, taking into account both its context and textual structure to apply it effectively, to fit into the scheme of the Act.”
The Court stated that certain directions had been issued with regard to the nomination and appointment of an Arbitrator by the parties hence, there was an effective appointment of the Arbitrator by the Court.
Consequently, the Court disposed of the petition with a direction that the Arbitral Tribunal’s term shall be extended for a further period of 1 year.
Respondent: Adv. A.S. Pandey, Addl. Sr. GA A.H. Kharwanlang, GA J.N. Rynjah
