{"id":298894,"date":"2023-08-08T18:00:27","date_gmt":"2023-08-08T12:30:27","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=298894"},"modified":"2023-08-11T15:44:40","modified_gmt":"2023-08-11T10:14:40","slug":"himachal-pradesh-hc-consent-by-parties-can-be-expressed-or-implied-for-extending-arbitral-period","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/08\/himachal-pradesh-hc-consent-by-parties-can-be-expressed-or-implied-for-extending-arbitral-period\/","title":{"rendered":"Consent for extending arbitral period under Section 29A(3) of 2015 Amendment Act doesn\u2019t need to be express or in writing: Himachal Pradesh HC"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Himachal Pradesh High Court:<\/b> In a case wherein, an appeal was filed by the applicants under Section 37(1)(c)<\/a> of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996<\/a> (‘A&C Act, 1996’) against the judgment passed by the District Judge, Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J.*,<\/b> opined that the consent of the parties under Section 29-A(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015<\/a> (‘A&C (Amendment) Act, 2015’), for extending the arbitral period need not necessarily be either express or in writing and thus, the Court remanded the matter back to the District Judge, Mandi for afresh consideration.<\/p>\n

Background<\/b><\/p>\n

In the present case, the trees, land, building, etc. of the applicants-appellants, were acquired by the respondent, National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) and the acquisition was for the construction of building and maintaining the four-lane road i.e., NH-21. Thereafter, an award was passed under Section 3G<\/a> of the National Highways Act, 1956<\/a> (‘NH Act’) and the market value of the acquired land was determined at Rs. 5,68,000 per bigha irrespective of its classification.<\/p>\n

The applicants-appellants, along with people whose lands were acquired petitioned under Section 3-G(5)<\/a> of the NH Act<\/a> before the Arbitrator, Divisional Commissioner Mandi, for enhancement of compensation. Thereafter, the arbitrator passed an award dated 05-09-2017 and enhanced the market value of the acquired land to Rs. 17,00,000 per bigha along with all statutory benefits.<\/p>\n

Subsequently, the respondent filed an application under Section 34<\/a> of the A&C Act, 1996<\/a> before the District Judge, Mandi, with a prayer to set aside the award dated 05-09-2017. Accordingly, the District Judge, Mandi, on 07-01-2022 set aside the award and held that the Arbitrator had erred in proceeding ahead with the matter after expiry of one year from the date of entering the reference without taking either the express consent of the parties or without seeking an extension from the Court as required under Section 29-A<\/a> of the A&C Act<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Analysis, Law, and Decision<\/b><\/p>\n

The Court analyzed Section 29-A of the A&C (Amendment) Act, 2015<\/a> and opined that an arbitral award could be made within a period of 12 months from the date the Arbitrator entered upon the reference and this period could be extended for further six months by the consent of the parties. Also, an award made beyond 12 months under Section 29A(1) or 18 months under Section 29A(3) shall not be valid. The Court could further extend the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal as per Section 29A(4) of the A&C (Amendment) Act, 2015<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The Court noted that in the instant case, the permissible period of twelve months within which the award could be validly pronounced under Section 29A(1) of the A&C (Amendment) Act, 2015<\/a> lapsed on 07-07-2017. However, both the parties did not object to the arbitration proceedings conducted beyond 07-07-2017 and continued with the proceedings. The Court opined that from the conduct of the parties, a tactic consent on their part for extending the period of arbitration could be inferred.<\/p>\n

The Court relied on Inder Sain Mittal<\/i> v. Housing Board, Haryana<\/i>, (2002) 3 SCC 175<\/a> and SARA International Pvt. Ltd.<\/i> v. South Eastern Railways<\/i>, 2020 SCC OnLine Ori 973<\/a> and opined that the consent of the parties under Section 29A(3) of the (Amendment) A&C Act, 2015<\/a>, for extending the arbitral period need not necessarily be either express or in writing. There could be deemed consent, an implied consent of the parties which could be gathered from their act and conduct.<\/p>\n

The Court opined that the compliance to proceed with the arbitration beyond twelve months without raising any objection to continuation of proceeding did amount to consent and based on such consent, the arbitral award if passed after six months would be a valid award. The Court further opined that the award was saved by Section 29A(3) of the A&C (Amendment) Act, 2015<\/a> as it was passed within the period permitted under Section 29A(3) of the A&C (Amendment) Act, 2015<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Therefore, the Court allowed the appeals and opined that the judgments passed by the District Judge, Mandi could not be sustained and remanded the matter back to District Judge, Mandi for afresh consideration and decision of applications moved by the parties under Section 34 of the A&C, 1996 on their own merits in accordance with law.<\/p>\n

[Balak Ram v. NHAI, 2023 SCC OnLine HP 944<\/a>, decided on 31-07-2023<\/span>]<\/p>\n

*Judgment by- Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n\n

Advocates who appeared in this case:<\/p>\n

For the Applicants-Appellants: Varun Rana, Advocate;<\/p>\n

For the Respondent: Shreya Chauhan, Advocate.<\/p>\n

Buy Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996   HERE<\/a><\/h3>\n

\"arbitration<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

“The consensus of the parties in proceeding with the arbitration case beyond twelve months without raising any objection to the continuation of proceeding does amount to consent. On the basis of such consent, the arbitral award if passed after six months would be a valid award.”<\/i><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67011,"featured_media":292797,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,10],"tags":[2633,60129,3226,47198,60130,2929,60131],"class_list":["post-298894","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-highcourts","tag-arbitral_award","tag-arbitral-period","tag-arbitration","tag-arbitration-proceeding","tag-express-consent","tag-Himachal_Pradesh_High_Court","tag-written-consent"],"yoast_head":"\nConsent of parties under S.29A(3) of the A&C (Amendment) Act, 2015 for extending arbitral period, need not necessarily be either express or in writing: Himachal Pradesh HC | SCC Blog<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Himachal Pradesh High Court opined that the consent of the parties under Section 29A(3) of the A&C (\u2018Amendment\u2019) Act, 2015, for extending the arbitral period need not necessarily be either express or in writing.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/08\/himachal-pradesh-hc-consent-by-parties-can-be-expressed-or-implied-for-extending-arbitral-period\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Consent for extending arbitral period under Section 29A(3) of 2015 Amendment Act doesn\u2019t need to be express or in writing: Himachal Pradesh HC\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Himachal Pradesh High Court opined that the consent of the parties under Section 29A(3) of the A&C (\u2018Amendment\u2019) Act, 2015, for extending the arbitral period need not necessarily be either express or in writing.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/08\/himachal-pradesh-hc-consent-by-parties-can-be-expressed-or-implied-for-extending-arbitral-period\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2023-08-08T12:30:27+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2023-08-11T10:14:40+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/himachal-pradesh-high-court.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"886\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"590\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"Consent for extending arbitral period under Section 29A(3) of 2015 Amendment Act doesn\u2019t need to be express or in writing: Himachal Pradesh HC\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"4 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2023\\\/08\\\/08\\\/himachal-pradesh-hc-consent-by-parties-can-be-expressed-or-implied-for-extending-arbitral-period\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2023\\\/08\\\/08\\\/himachal-pradesh-hc-consent-by-parties-can-be-expressed-or-implied-for-extending-arbitral-period\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Editor\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\"},\"headline\":\"Consent for extending arbitral period under Section 29A(3) of 2015 Amendment Act doesn\u2019t need to be express or in writing: Himachal Pradesh HC\",\"datePublished\":\"2023-08-08T12:30:27+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2023-08-11T10:14:40+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2023\\\/08\\\/08\\\/himachal-pradesh-hc-consent-by-parties-can-be-expressed-or-implied-for-extending-arbitral-period\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":769,\"commentCount\":0,\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2023\\\/08\\\/08\\\/himachal-pradesh-hc-consent-by-parties-can-be-expressed-or-implied-for-extending-arbitral-period\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2023\\\/05\\\/himachal-pradesh-high-court.webp\",\"keywords\":[\"arbitral award\",\"arbitral period\",\"Arbitration\",\"Arbitration Proceeding\",\"express consent\",\"Himachal Pradesh High Court\",\"written consent\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Case Briefs\",\"High Courts\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2023\\\/08\\\/08\\\/himachal-pradesh-hc-consent-by-parties-can-be-expressed-or-implied-for-extending-arbitral-period\\\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2023\\\/08\\\/08\\\/himachal-pradesh-hc-consent-by-parties-can-be-expressed-or-implied-for-extending-arbitral-period\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2023\\\/08\\\/08\\\/himachal-pradesh-hc-consent-by-parties-can-be-expressed-or-implied-for-extending-arbitral-period\\\/\",\"name\":\"Consent of parties under S.29A(3) of the A&C (Amendment) Act, 2015 for extending arbitral period, need not necessarily be either express or in writing: Himachal Pradesh HC | SCC Blog\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2023\\\/08\\\/08\\\/himachal-pradesh-hc-consent-by-parties-can-be-expressed-or-implied-for-extending-arbitral-period\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2023\\\/08\\\/08\\\/himachal-pradesh-hc-consent-by-parties-can-be-expressed-or-implied-for-extending-arbitral-period\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2023\\\/05\\\/himachal-pradesh-high-court.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2023-08-08T12:30:27+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2023-08-11T10:14:40+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\"},\"description\":\"Himachal Pradesh High Court opined that the consent of the parties under Section 29A(3) of the A&C (\u2018Amendment\u2019) Act, 2015, for extending the arbitral period need not necessarily be either express or in writing.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2023\\\/08\\\/08\\\/himachal-pradesh-hc-consent-by-parties-can-be-expressed-or-implied-for-extending-arbitral-period\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2023\\\/08\\\/08\\\/himachal-pradesh-hc-consent-by-parties-can-be-expressed-or-implied-for-extending-arbitral-period\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2023\\\/08\\\/08\\\/himachal-pradesh-hc-consent-by-parties-can-be-expressed-or-implied-for-extending-arbitral-period\\\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2023\\\/05\\\/himachal-pradesh-high-court.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2023\\\/05\\\/himachal-pradesh-high-court.webp\",\"width\":886,\"height\":590,\"caption\":\"himachal pradesh high court\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2023\\\/08\\\/08\\\/himachal-pradesh-hc-consent-by-parties-can-be-expressed-or-implied-for-extending-arbitral-period\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Consent for extending arbitral period under Section 29A(3) of 2015 Amendment Act doesn\u2019t need to be express or in writing: Himachal Pradesh HC\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\",\"name\":\"Editor\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Editor\"},\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/author\\\/editor_4\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Consent of parties under S.29A(3) of the A&C (Amendment) Act, 2015 for extending arbitral period, need not necessarily be either express or in writing: Himachal Pradesh HC | SCC Blog","description":"Himachal Pradesh High Court opined that the consent of the parties under Section 29A(3) of the A&C (\u2018Amendment\u2019) Act, 2015, for extending the arbitral period need not necessarily be either express or in writing.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/08\/himachal-pradesh-hc-consent-by-parties-can-be-expressed-or-implied-for-extending-arbitral-period\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Consent for extending arbitral period under Section 29A(3) of 2015 Amendment Act doesn\u2019t need to be express or in writing: Himachal Pradesh HC","og_description":"Himachal Pradesh High Court opined that the consent of the parties under Section 29A(3) of the A&C (\u2018Amendment\u2019) Act, 2015, for extending the arbitral period need not necessarily be either express or in writing.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/08\/himachal-pradesh-hc-consent-by-parties-can-be-expressed-or-implied-for-extending-arbitral-period\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2023-08-08T12:30:27+00:00","article_modified_time":"2023-08-11T10:14:40+00:00","og_image":[{"width":886,"height":590,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/himachal-pradesh-high-court.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Editor","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"Consent for extending arbitral period under Section 29A(3) of 2015 Amendment Act doesn\u2019t need to be express or in writing: Himachal Pradesh HC","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Editor","Est. reading time":"4 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/08\/himachal-pradesh-hc-consent-by-parties-can-be-expressed-or-implied-for-extending-arbitral-period\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/08\/himachal-pradesh-hc-consent-by-parties-can-be-expressed-or-implied-for-extending-arbitral-period\/"},"author":{"name":"Editor","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe"},"headline":"Consent for extending arbitral period under Section 29A(3) of 2015 Amendment Act doesn\u2019t need to be express or in writing: Himachal Pradesh HC","datePublished":"2023-08-08T12:30:27+00:00","dateModified":"2023-08-11T10:14:40+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/08\/himachal-pradesh-hc-consent-by-parties-can-be-expressed-or-implied-for-extending-arbitral-period\/"},"wordCount":769,"commentCount":0,"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/08\/himachal-pradesh-hc-consent-by-parties-can-be-expressed-or-implied-for-extending-arbitral-period\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/himachal-pradesh-high-court.webp","keywords":["arbitral award","arbitral period","Arbitration","Arbitration Proceeding","express consent","Himachal Pradesh High Court","written consent"],"articleSection":["Case Briefs","High Courts"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/08\/himachal-pradesh-hc-consent-by-parties-can-be-expressed-or-implied-for-extending-arbitral-period\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/08\/himachal-pradesh-hc-consent-by-parties-can-be-expressed-or-implied-for-extending-arbitral-period\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/08\/himachal-pradesh-hc-consent-by-parties-can-be-expressed-or-implied-for-extending-arbitral-period\/","name":"Consent of parties under S.29A(3) of the A&C (Amendment) Act, 2015 for extending arbitral period, need not necessarily be either express or in writing: Himachal Pradesh HC | SCC Blog","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/08\/himachal-pradesh-hc-consent-by-parties-can-be-expressed-or-implied-for-extending-arbitral-period\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/08\/himachal-pradesh-hc-consent-by-parties-can-be-expressed-or-implied-for-extending-arbitral-period\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/himachal-pradesh-high-court.webp","datePublished":"2023-08-08T12:30:27+00:00","dateModified":"2023-08-11T10:14:40+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe"},"description":"Himachal Pradesh High Court opined that the consent of the parties under Section 29A(3) of the A&C (\u2018Amendment\u2019) Act, 2015, for extending the arbitral period need not necessarily be either express or in writing.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/08\/himachal-pradesh-hc-consent-by-parties-can-be-expressed-or-implied-for-extending-arbitral-period\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/08\/himachal-pradesh-hc-consent-by-parties-can-be-expressed-or-implied-for-extending-arbitral-period\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/08\/himachal-pradesh-hc-consent-by-parties-can-be-expressed-or-implied-for-extending-arbitral-period\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/himachal-pradesh-high-court.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/himachal-pradesh-high-court.webp","width":886,"height":590,"caption":"himachal pradesh high court"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/08\/himachal-pradesh-hc-consent-by-parties-can-be-expressed-or-implied-for-extending-arbitral-period\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Consent for extending arbitral period under Section 29A(3) of 2015 Amendment Act doesn\u2019t need to be express or in writing: Himachal Pradesh HC"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe","name":"Editor","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Editor"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/himachal-pradesh-high-court.webp","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":222603,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/11\/27\/section-87-of-the-arbitration-and-conciliation-act-1996-struck-down-heres-why\/","url_meta":{"origin":298894,"position":0},"title":"Section 87 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 struck down. Here’s why","author":"Prachi Bhardwaj","date":"November 27, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court: The 3-judge bench of RF Nariman, Surya Kant and V. Ramasubramanian, JJ has held that Section 87 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 must be struck down as manifestly arbitrary under Article 14. Section 87 as introduced by the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2019 states that\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":240015,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/12\/02\/hp-hc-claim-barred-by-limitation-is-a-question-of-law-and-facts-which-arbitral-tribunal-or-arbitrator-has-to-consider-on-the-basis-of-record-petition-allowed\/","url_meta":{"origin":298894,"position":1},"title":"HP HC | Claim barred by limitation is a question of law and facts which Arbitral Tribunal or Arbitrator has to consider on the basis of record; petition allowed","author":"Editor","date":"December 2, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"Himachal Pradesh High Court: L. Narayana Swamy CJ., while exercising its powers under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, appointed an Arbitrator and further allowed to either determine its own procedure for settling the dispute or run itself as per Section 23 and Section 29A of the\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":268941,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/06\/23\/himachal-pradesh-high-court-lack-of-immediate-remedy-under-arbitration-act-not-a-ground-to-challenge-an-arbitral-order-passed-on-miscellaneous-application-before-high-court\/","url_meta":{"origin":298894,"position":2},"title":"Himachal Pradesh High Court | Lack of immediate remedy under Arbitration Act not a ground to challenge an arbitral order passed on miscellaneous application before High Court","author":"Editor","date":"June 23, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"Himachal Pradesh High Court: In the case where it was argued before the Court that the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short \u201c1996 Act\u201d) does not provide for any remedy to challenge an arbitral order and was hence, against the \u201cpublic policy of India\u201d, Satyen Vaidya J. observed that,\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Himachal Pradesh High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/himachal_pradesh_high_court.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/himachal_pradesh_high_court.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/himachal_pradesh_high_court.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/himachal_pradesh_high_court.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/himachal_pradesh_high_court.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":238549,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/11\/05\/arbitration-and-conciliation-amendment-ordinance-2020-stakeholder-get-opportunity-to-seek-unconditional-stay-of-enforcement-of-arbitral-awards-induced-by-fraud-or-corruption\/","url_meta":{"origin":298894,"position":3},"title":"Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Ordinance, 2020: Stakeholder get opportunity to seek unconditional stay of enforcement of arbitral awards induced by fraud or corruption","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"November 5, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"President promulgates Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Ordinance, 2020 Amendment of Section 36 In Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the principal Act), in sub-section (3), after the proviso, the following shall be inserted and shall be deemed to have been inserted with effect\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Legislation Updates"","block_context":{"text":"Legislation Updates","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/legislationupdates\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":275309,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/10\/10\/madras-high-court-arbitral-tribunal-arbitration-and-conciliation-act-arbitral-award-specific-relief-act-public-policy-specific-performance-legal-research-legal-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":298894,"position":4},"title":"Madras High Court | Courts will not interfere or set aside an arbitral award, merely because an alternative view is possible; Adopt a hands-off approach","author":"Editor","date":"October 10, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"\u00a0 \u00a0 Madras High Court: In an intra-Court appeal filed against the order of the single judge, whereby, the judge allowed the original petition filed by the respondents under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (\u2018the Act\u2019) and set aside the award, passed by the Arbitral Tribunal\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Madras High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/Madras-HC.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/Madras-HC.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/Madras-HC.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/Madras-HC.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/Madras-HC.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":273278,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/09\/08\/delhi-high-court-amendment-application-being-rejected-as-belated-does-not-constitute-interim-award-susceptible-to-challenge-under-s-34-arbitration-conciliation-act-1996\/","url_meta":{"origin":298894,"position":5},"title":"Delhi High Court: Amendment application being rejected as ‘belated’ does not constitute interim award susceptible to challenge under S 34 Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996","author":"Editor","date":"September 8, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"\u00a0 \u00a0 Delhi High Court: In a petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, (\u2018A&C Act') challenging an order passed wherein the arbitrator rejected an application filed by the petitioner for amendment of the statement of claim, Prateek Jalan, J. dismissed the petition as non-maintainable\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Delhi High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/delhi_high_court.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/delhi_high_court.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/delhi_high_court.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/delhi_high_court.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/delhi_high_court.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/298894","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/67011"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=298894"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/298894\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/292797"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=298894"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=298894"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=298894"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}