Waiver of time-limit objection in arbitration can arise from continued participation after expiry without clear protest.

Participation in arbitral proceedings after expiry of a contractual time limit, without a clear and timely objection, can amount to waiver of reliance on that limit. Continued participation, including further submissions and written arguments after expiry of both the initial and extended periods, showed that the respondent had waived the delay objection. An award made after the contractual period was not liable to be set aside automatically on that ground alone; the statutory and contractual context, together with the parties' conduct, had to be examined. The matter was therefore remanded for fresh consideration on the merits after reversal of the order setting aside the award.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the objection that the arbitral award was made after the contractual time limit had been waived by the conduct of the respondent. (ii) Whether an award made after expiry of the contractual period had to be set aside automatically for want of jurisdiction.

Issue (i): The contractual clause required the award to be made within six months, extendable by four months, but the surrounding conduct showed that the respondent continued to participate in the arbitral proceedings after expiry of the initial period and again after expiry of the extended period. The respondent made further submissions and filed written submissions without taking a clear stand that the arbitrator's mandate had ended. A general challenge in the arbitration petition was not treated as a specific objection to the time-limit point.

Conclusion: The objection to the award on the ground of delay was held to have been waived by conduct.

Issue (ii): The time-limit clause did not create an inflexible rule that every award made after the stipulated period must be set aside. The statutory and contractual context, together with the parties' conduct, had to be examined, and the earlier authority relied upon did not exclude waiver where the parties implicitly consented to continuation of the proceedings. Since the single judge had allowed the petition only on the jurisdictional issue, the merits were left open for consideration on remand.

Conclusion: The award was not liable to be set aside automatically for having been made after the contractual period, and the matter was remanded for decision on merits.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the order setting aside the award was reversed, and the petition was sent back for fresh consideration on the merits.

Ratio Decidendi: Participation in arbitral proceedings after expiry of a contractual time limit, without a clear and timely objection, can amount to waiver of the right to rely on that time limit.

---