COVID-19 lockdown relief extended arbitral timelines and allowed release on personal bond where sureties could not be arranged.
The Allahabad HC noted that the Section 29A time limit for making an arbitral award, read with completion of pleadings under Section 23(4), is ordinarily mandatory, but the COVID-19 lockdown justified a short extension to prevent prejudice in ongoing arbitrations; the award period in affected proceedings was extended up to 25 May 2020 where the twelve-month period had expired or was to expire on or after 25 March 2020. It also held that accused persons granted bail but unable to furnish sureties because of lockdown restrictions could be released on personal bond, with sureties to be furnished within one month, so that bail relief was not defeated by practical impossibility.
Issues: (i) Whether the period for making an arbitral award under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 should be extended in view of the COVID-19 lockdown. (ii) Whether accused persons whose bail had been allowed but who could not be released for want of sureties should be permitted release on personal bond during the lockdown.
Issue (i): Whether the period for making an arbitral award under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 should be extended in view of the COVID-19 lockdown.
Analysis: The order notes that the statutory period under Section 29A, read with completion of pleadings under Section 23(4), is mandatory in ordinary circumstances, but the unprecedented lockdown created extraordinary practical difficulty in completing arbitral proceedings within time. In that situation, a short extension of time was considered necessary to avoid prejudice to ongoing arbitrations.
Conclusion: The period for making the award in affected arbitral proceedings was extended up to 25 May 2020 where the twelve-month period had expired or was to expire on or after 25 March 2020.
Issue (ii): Whether accused persons whose bail had been allowed but who could not be released for want of sureties should be permitted release on personal bond during the lockdown.
Analysis: The order records that the lockdown made it difficult to arrange sureties, resulting in continued detention despite bail having been granted. Exercising constitutional jurisdiction, the Court treated the inability to furnish sureties as a consequence of the lockdown and directed a practical interim measure so that the benefit of bail was not frustrated.
Conclusion: Such accused persons were directed to be released on executing personal bond to the satisfaction of the jail authorities, with an undertaking to furnish the required sureties within one month of release.
Final Conclusion: The order issued pandemic-related interim directions to preserve the efficacy of arbitral timelines and bail orders during the lockdown period.
Ratio Decidendi: Where statutory or judicial requirements become impracticable because of an extraordinary lockdown, the Court may grant limited protective directions to prevent prejudice and preserve substantive rights.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
