TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether a party to an arbitration agreement is precluded from challenging an award on the ground that it was made after the prescribed period merely because the party participated in the arbitration proceedings after expiry of that period. (ii) Whether time for making the award could be extended by the Court despite expiry of the prescribed period and whether such extension should be granted in the facts of the case.
Issue (i): Whether a party to an arbitration agreement is precluded from challenging an award on the ground that it was made after the prescribed period merely because the party participated in the arbitration proceedings after expiry of that period.
Analysis: Under the arbitration scheme, the award had to be made within the prescribed time unless enlarged by the Court. The statutory bar on enlargement by the parties or the arbitrator could not be defeated by conduct. Participation after expiry of time could not create jurisdiction where the law withheld it, and there could be no estoppel against statute.
Conclusion: The party was not barred from challenging the award on the ground of delay merely because it ated in the proceedings after expiry of the prescribed period.
Issue (ii): Whether time for making the award could be extended by the Court despite expiry of the prescribed period and whether such extension should be granted in the facts of the case.
Analysis: The power to enlarge time vested in the Court under the Arbitration Act was wide and could be exercised even after the award had been made or the prescribed time had expired, but only on a judicially sound basis. The policy of the law was to prevent undue prolongation of arbitration, yet the parties had proceeded without demur and the appeal had remained pending for a long time. In those circumstances, the appellate Court could itself grant the enlargement instead of sending the matter back for fresh consideration.
Conclusion: Time for making the award could be enlarged by the Court, and it was extended in the facts of the case so that the award was treated as timely.
Final Conclusion: The challenge based on delay was not defeated by participation, but the appellate Court exercised its power to extend time and remitted the remaining objections to the High Court for decision.
Ratio Decidendi: Statutory time limits for making an arbitral award cannot be waived by conduct so as to confer jurisdiction on the arbitrator, but the Court may enlarge the time in the exercise of judicial discretion even after expiry of the original period or after the award has been made.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
