CASES for Section 29A [The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

]
Sl Case Title & Coram& Facts of the case Question of Judgment with Para no. Ratio with Para no. (if any) References
Citation DOJ Law (cases & Art.)
1. Delhi Development CORAM The petitioner had filed a petition under Section Whether the The court having jurisdiction to The court relied upon the case of 1. SBP and
Authority vs. M/s : Justice 29A of the Act for extension of mandate of the power to extend appoint an arbitrator under Section SBP and Company versus M/s. Company versus
Tara Chand Sumit Jyoti arbitrator in the Delhi High Court. The court had the mandate of 11 of the Arbitration and Patel Engineering Company M/s. Patel
Construction Singh issued notice to the respondent. However, the the arbitrator lies Conciliation Act 1996 (Act) shall Limited. The cuour while Engineering
Company respondent in its reply objected to maintainability of with the Civil have the jurisdiction to extend the investigating section 29 A found Company
Date of the petition on the ground of lack of pecuniary Court of original mandate or substitute the arbitrators that The nonattendance of any Limited
OMP (Misc.) Judgment jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court as the value of jurisdiction in under Section 29A of the Act i.e. arrangement for an allure as for
(Comm.) 236/2019 12.05.20 the claims was less than Rs. 2 Crores. Consequently, terms of the the High Court or the Supreme the activity of such force under 2. Nilesh
decided on 20 the petitioner sought the leave of the hon'ble court to definition of the Court as the case may be will have section 29A, in nature as Ramanbhai Patel
12.05.2020. withdraw the petition, with the liberty to file a fresh term "Court" in the jurisdiction to extend the referenced above, would and Ors. v.
petition in the court of competent jurisdiction. The Section 2(1)(e) mandate of the Arbitrator or demonstrate that the force under Bhanubhai
Delhi High Court therefore passed an order dated of the Act. substitute one or all the arbitrators section 29A isn't to be practiced Ramanbhai Patel
31.07.2019, dismissing the petition as withdrawn in an arbitration under Section 29A by the vital common court of and Ors.
granting the liberty sought by the petitioner. of the Act. unique jurisdiction. Otherwise, it
However, the petitioner had then filed the present will make the irregular
interlocutory application under Section 151 of the circumstances of
Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for the recall of the indistinguishable forces being
aforesaid order. practiced in an opposite way,
biased to the order of the courts.
2. ONGC Petro CORAM: Pursuant to an agreement b/w “Petitioner” & Whether the Section 29A of the Arbitration and The Court relied upon Workmen 1. Thirumalai
Additions Ltd. v. Before “Respondent”, disputes arose b/w the parties. The changes brought Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Act”) v. Firestone Tyre & Rubber Co. Chemicals Ltd.
Ferns Construction Justice parties invoked the arbitration clause and an Arbitral in Section 29A shall be applicable to all pending of India (P) Ltd. v. Union of India
Co. Inc V. Tribunal was constituted to adjudicate the disputes. of the Act by the arbitrations seated in India as on The Court Found that any (2011) 6 SCC
Kameswar The Respondent had earlier filed an anti-arbitration 2019 August 30, 2019 and commenced amendment to substantive laws 739 and
OMP(MISC) Rao injunction against the Petitioner contending that it is Amendment will after 23 October 2015, except affecting the rights and liabilities Rajendra Kumar
(COMM) 256/2019, not bound by the arbitration clause, which was have international commercial of a party or imposing a disability v. Kalyan (D) by
I.A. 4989/2020 Date of rejected by the Delhi High Court in April 2019; the retrospective arbitrations. Section 29A of the Act must be prospective in nature. On Lrs. (2000) 8
Judgment Delhi High Court granted the Respondent liberty to effect from 23 inserted by way of amendment in the other hand, any amendment to SCC 99
21.07.20 raise this issue before the Arbitral Tribunal. The October 2015 2015 (“2015 Amendment”) the provisions of statute dealing 2. Sudhir G.
20 issue of Respondent being a proper party is i.e. the date on prescribes the time limit for passing merely with matters of procedure Angur and Ors.
currently pending for determination before the which the 2015 an arbitral award. Pursuant to the shall be retrospective in nature, v. M. Sanjeev
Arbitral Tribunal.During the course of arbitration, Amendment report of the High-Level unless there exist a contrary and Ors. (2006)
the Petitioner approached the Delhi High Court came into force, Committee to ‘Review the intention of the legislature. 1 SCC 141
seeking extension of time limit under Section 29A as Section 29A Institutionalisation of Arbitration 3. Shapoorji
of the Act. The Hon’ble Single Judge, in his order has been Mechanism in India’ under the Pallonji and Co.
dated 25 September 2019 extended the time for the classified a chairmanship of Justice B. N. Pvt. Ltd v Jindal
 CASES for Section 29A [The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.]
Arbitral Tribunal to complete the proceedings and procedural law? Srikrishna, the Arbitration and India Thermal
render the award by 18 months, effective from 24 Conciliation (Amendment) Act, Power Limited
June, 2019.4 However, during the pendency of the 20192 (“2019 Amendment”) 4. Workmen v.
proceedings, Section 29A of the Act was amended introduced further changes to Firestone Tyre &
by the 2019 Amendment. Considering the Section 29A. Rubber Co. of
Respondent is a company incorporated under the India (P) Ltd.
laws of Turkey, the current arbitration is in the (1973) 1 SCC
nature of an International Commercial Arbitration 813
under the Act. In light of the 2019 Amendment, the
Arbitral Tribunal asked the parties to seek
clarifications from the court on its order dated 25
September 2019.
3. Cabra Instalaciones CORAM: The petitioner approached the High Court under Whether it The High Court concluded that in The Court literally interpreted 1. Section 11 (5)
Y. Servicios, S.A Before Section 29A of the Act and sought an extension of would have the the case of international section 29A and found that On a 2. Section 29 A
v. G.S. six months for conclusion of the arbitral jurisdiction, commercial arbitrations, it did not plain reading of Section 29A
Maharashtra State Kulkarni, proceedings and passing the award. The arbitration under Section have the jurisdiction to pass any along with its sub-sections, it can
Electricity was an international commercial arbitration and the 29A, to entertain orders under Section 29A and such be seen that for seeking extension
Distribution DOJ: 29 arbitrator had been appointed by the Supreme Court the application power would lie only with the of the mandate of an arbitral
Company Limited July under Section 11 of the Act. It appears that this was for extension of Supreme Court. Noticing that tribunal, these are substantive
[2019 SCC OnLine the second time an extension had been sought from time when the Section 29A also provided for the powers which are conferred on
Bom 1437] the High Court in this case and the mandate of the arbitrator had substitution of the arbitral tribunal the Court and more particularly in
arbitral tribunal was already extended by the High been appointed by the concerned Court while view of the clear provisions of
Court on a previous occasion. under Section 11 considering an application for sub-section (6) which provides
of the Act by the extension of time, the High Court that while extending the period
Supreme Court? opined that this would be the referred to in sub-section (4), it
exclusive power and jurisdiction of would be open to the Court to
the Supreme Court. substitute one or all the
arbitrators, which is in fact a
power to make appointment of a
new/substitute arbitrator or any
member of the arbitral tribunal
 CASES for Section 29A [The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.]
4.