Statutory arbitration time extension under Stock Exchange bye-laws prevails over consent requirement and preserves jurisdiction

In a statutory arbitration under Stock Exchange bye-laws, the arbitrators did not become functus officio merely because the award was not made within time and one party withheld consent to enlargement. Section 28 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 generally requires party consent for extension, but section 46 makes the Act subject to the governing statutory scheme where there is inconsistency. The bye-laws expressly authorised the Governing Board or President to extend time for making the award without unanimous consent, and that statutory power prevailed over section 28(2). The time had in fact been extended from time to time, so the arbitration remained valid and within jurisdiction.

---

---

Issues: Whether the arbitrators in a statutory arbitration under the Stock Exchange bye-laws had become functus officio and the proceedings had become null and void because the award was not made within time and one party declined consent for enlargement of time.

Analysis: Section 28 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 restricts enlargement of time by arbitrators except with the consent of all parties. However, section 46 makes the Act applicable to statutory arbitrations only to the extent it is not inconsistent with the governing enactment or rules. The Exchange bye-laws expressly empowered the Governing Board or the President to extend time for making the award even without consent of the parties. Those bye-laws, being statutory, prevailed over the inconsistent operation of section 28(2). The time for making the award had in fact been extended from time to time, and even otherwise the competent authority retained power to extend it.

Conclusion: The arbitrators had not become functus officio, had not lost jurisdiction, and the arbitration proceedings were not null and void.

---