TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Arbitration Award Deadline Extended by Exchange Bye-laws</h1> The court held that the arbitration proceedings were not null and void due to the expiry of time for the arbitrators to make the award, as the Exchange's ... Time for making award - Enlargement of Issues:1. Declaration sought regarding nullity of arbitration proceedings due to expiry of time for making the award.2. Interpretation of statutory provisions and bye-laws governing arbitration proceedings.3. Consideration of consent for enlargement of time for arbitrators to make the award.4. Application of section 28 and section 46 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940.5. Jurisdiction of the arbitrators and validity of the arbitration proceedings.Analysis:The petitioner, a suspended member of the Stock Exchange, Bombay, sought a declaration that the arbitration proceedings had become null and void due to the expiry of the time for the arbitrators to make the award and the petitioner's refusal to consent to an extension of time. The petitioner relied on sections 28 and 46 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940, and the case law of Hari Krishna Wattal v. Vaikunth Nath Pandya AIR 1973 SC 2479 to support the argument that the arbitrators had lost jurisdiction. The petitioner contended that the arbitrators could not enlarge the time for making the award without mutual consent of the parties. However, the respondent argued that the Governing Board or the President of the Exchange had the power to extend the time for the arbitrators to make the award as per the statutory bye-laws of the Exchange, irrespective of the parties' consent.The statutory bye-laws 254 and 261 of the Exchange empowered the Governing Board or the President to extend the time for making the award, even without the consent of the parties to the reference. The respondent's counsel argued that these bye-laws prevailed over the requirement of mutual consent under section 28 of the Act. The court noted that under section 28(2) of the Act, the arbitrators could only enlarge the time with the consent of all parties, as reiterated in the Hari Krishna Wattal case. However, the court considered the application of section 46 of the Act, which stated that inconsistent provisions of the Act would not apply to statutory arbitrations, and the provisions of the enactment and related rules would prevail.The court concluded that since the Exchange's bye-laws allowed for the extension of time for making the award by the Governing Board or the President, the arbitrators had not lost jurisdiction. The court dismissed the petition, directing the arbitrators to make their award by a specified date. The judgment highlighted the importance of completing the arbitration proceedings promptly, especially considering the petitioner's interest in the restoration of their membership, dependent on the arbitration outcome.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
