We Care...!!!

NEW DELHI: With excessive business worth disputes getting frequently referred to arbitration in India, the Supreme Court has determined to kind out prevailing confusion over what’s the limitation interval for submitting of attraction in opposition to arbitral award – 90 days or 120 days.
But, the try to clear the confusion noticed parallel proceedings within the Supreme Court as two coordinate benches took up the matter and handed orders. The confusion over the limitation interval for submitting attraction in opposition to arbitral awards arose from judgements of the SC, one holding that it was 90 days whereas others stating that it was extendable to 120 days.
A bench headed by justices RF Nariman on January 10 took notice of the confusion on limitation interval and determined to listen to the difficulty. However, on February 5, the identical situation got here up earlier than a bench headed by justice Indu Malhotra, which handed an in depth order.
Justice Malhotra bench famous that the SC in its 2008 judgement in ‘Consolidated Engineering Enterprises’ case had dominated that the interval of limitation for submitting appeals below part 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was ruled by Article 116 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963, which prescribes 90 days limitation interval for submitting attraction earlier than the excessive courtroom.
However, in two judgments of the yr 2020, the SC in ‘Varindera Constructions Ltd‘ and ‘NV International’ took the view that interval of limitation for submitting attraction below part 37 needs to be the identical as below Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, that’s 120 days. Justice Malhotra-led bench mentioned enactment of Commercial Courts Act, 2015 added to the confusion.
“Thus, the conundrum to be answered is as to what would be the appropriate period of limitation applicable to appeals filed under section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. We direct the matter to be listed for final hearing on February 16”, the bench ordered.
However, the sooner matter on the identical situation got here up for additional listening to on February 10 earlier than the bench headed Justice Nariman, who then ordered, “The registry is directed to apprise Justice Indu Malhotra that this bench is seized of the matter.’
When the case got here up earlier than Justice Malhotra-led bench on February 16, it ordered itemizing of the case earlier than a bench headed by justice Nariman.

Report

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Translate »