Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, the Chief Engineer of the Public Works Department, Government of Goa, challenged an order dated 06/06/2018 passed by the learned Sole Arbitrator. The arbitrator, while deciding an application for extension of time to make an award, held that the Amendment Act of 2015 was not applicable to the arbitral proceedings at large before him, and that the parties were not required to seek extension of time for making the award. The petitioner invoked Article 227 of the Constitution to challenge this order. The respondent was M/s. Karnatak Cement Pipe Factory, a registered partnership firm. The arbitration agreement was entered into before 23 October 2015, and the arbitral proceedings had commenced prior to that date. The learned Principal District Judge had earlier enlarged the time for deciding the arbitral proceedings under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, as amended by the Amendment Act of 2015. The arbitrator, however, held that the Amendment Act of 2015 did not apply to the proceedings. The High Court, after hearing both sides, held that the Amendment Act of 2015 does not apply to arbitral proceedings commenced before 23 October 2015, as per the settled legal position. The court also held that the arbitrator's order was a reasoned order and not perverse or without jurisdiction, and therefore, no interference under Article 227 was warranted. The petition was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Arbitration Law - Applicability of Amendment Act of 2015 - Section 29A of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - The Amendment Act of 2015 does not apply to arbitral proceedings commenced prior to 23 October 2015, as per the settled legal position. The arbitrator's order holding that the parties were not required to seek extension of time under Section 29A was correct. (Paras 5-10)
B) Constitutional Law - Article 227 - Interlocutory Orders of Arbitrator - The High Court declined to interfere under Article 227 with the arbitrator's order, as it was a reasoned order and not perverse or without jurisdiction. (Paras 10-12)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Amendment Act of 2015 (specifically Section 29A) applies to arbitral proceedings where the arbitration agreement was entered into before 23 October 2015, and whether the arbitrator's order refusing extension of time under Section 29A is amenable to Article 227 of the Constitution.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the Amendment Act of 2015 does not apply to arbitral proceedings commenced before 23 October 2015, and the arbitrator's order was not perverse or without jurisdiction, hence no interference under Article 227 was warranted.
Law Points
- Amendment Act of 2015 not applicable to arbitral proceedings commenced before 23 October 2015
- Section 29A of Arbitration and Conciliation Act
- 1996 does not apply to pre-2015 arbitration agreements
- Article 227 jurisdiction not available against interlocutory orders of arbitrator
Case Details
Writ Petition No. 868 of 2018
Shri Pravin Faldessai (for petitioner), Shri P.A. Kholkar (for respondent)
Chief Engineer, Public Works Department, Government of Goa
M/s. Karnatak Cement Pipe Factory
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 227 challenging an interlocutory order of an arbitrator refusing extension of time under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner sought to quash the arbitrator's order dated 06/06/2018 and to direct the arbitrator to consider the application for extension of time under Section 29A.
Filing Reason
The arbitrator held that the Amendment Act of 2015 was not applicable to the arbitral proceedings and that the parties were not required to seek extension of time for making the award.
Previous Decisions
The learned Principal District Judge had earlier enlarged the time for deciding the arbitral proceedings under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, as amended by the Amendment Act of 2015, vide order dated 07/10/2017.
Issues
Whether the Amendment Act of 2015 (specifically Section 29A) applies to arbitral proceedings where the arbitration agreement was entered into before 23 October 2015?
Whether the arbitrator's order refusing extension of time under Section 29A is amenable to Article 227 of the Constitution?
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioner argued that the Amendment Act of 2015 applies to all arbitral proceedings, and the arbitrator erred in holding otherwise.
The respondent supported the arbitrator's order, contending that the Amendment Act of 2015 does not apply to pre-2015 arbitration agreements.
Ratio Decidendi
The Amendment Act of 2015 does not apply to arbitral proceedings commenced prior to 23 October 2015. The arbitrator's order refusing extension of time under Section 29A was a reasoned order and not amenable to Article 227 jurisdiction.
Judgment Excerpts
The Amendment Act of 2015 was not applicable to the arbitral proceedings at large before him, that the parties were not required to seek the extension of time for making the award and disposed off the application accordingly.
The learned Principal District Judge dated 07/10/2017 pursuant to which he had enlarged the time for deciding the arbitral proceedings and after considering the application under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 amended by the Amendment Act of 2015.
Procedural History
The arbitration agreement was entered into before 23 October 2015. The learned Principal District Judge enlarged time under Section 29A on 07/10/2017. The arbitrator passed the impugned order on 06/06/2018 holding the Amendment Act of 2015 inapplicable. The petitioner filed the present writ petition under Article 227 on an unspecified date. The High Court reserved judgment on 31/10/2018 and pronounced on 01/11/2018.
Acts & Sections
- Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: Section 29A
- Constitution of India: Article 227
