{"id":301753,"date":"2023-09-18T12:00:54","date_gmt":"2023-09-18T06:30:54","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=301753"},"modified":"2023-09-18T12:17:12","modified_gmt":"2023-09-18T06:47:12","slug":"arbitral-award-termination-section-29-arbitration-conciliation-act-1996-void-calcutta-hc-scc-blog","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/09\/18\/arbitral-award-termination-section-29-arbitration-conciliation-act-1996-void-calcutta-hc-scc-blog\/","title":{"rendered":"Calcutta High Court deems Arbitral Award void after termination of Arbitrator\u2019s mandate under Section 29-A(4) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Calcutta High Court:<\/span> While dismissing the petitions seeking an extension of the arbitrator’s mandate to make and publish the awards under Section 29-A(4)<\/a> of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996<\/a> (the Act), a single-bench comprising of Moushumi Bhattacharya,*<\/span> J., held that Section 29-A(4)<\/a> of the Act<\/a> allows for the extension of the arbitrator’s mandate, but only while the mandate is still subsisting and once the mandate has terminated, this power cannot be invoked. The Court further held that once the specified timeframes under Section 29-A(1) or Section 29-A(3) expires, the mandate terminates, and no further extension is possible under Section 29-A(4).<\/p>\n

Factual Matrix<\/p>\n

The instant matter involves three separate arbitration petitions with nearly identical issues. The petitioners in all three applications have requested an extension of the mandate for the arbitrators to make and publish the awards. However, the respondents in all three cases have opposed any further extension of the mandates. These cases also involve proceedings related to the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) initiated against the petitioner under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016<\/a> (IBC). The petitioner seeks to argue that the CIRP represents a break in the sequence under Section 29-A<\/a> of the Act<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Moot Point<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. \n

    Can Court extend the mandate of the arbitrators under Section 29-A(4)<\/a> of the Act<\/a>, after the mandates have terminated?<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  2. \n

    Whether Court’s power to extend the mandate under section 29-A(4) applicable even if the application filed after the expiry of the period for making the award under Section 29-A(1)<\/a> of the Act<\/a>?<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    Petitioners’ Contentions<\/p>\n

    The petitioners contended that an application for extension of the arbitrator’s mandate is maintainable even if filed after the expiry of the time specified in Section 29-A(1) or Section 29-A(3)<\/a> of the Act<\/a>. The petitioners relied on Section 29-A(4) and asserted that the Court has the power to extend the period either before or after the expiry of the specified period. They contend that the Court should assess the sufficiency of the cause shown for extension, as outlined in Section 29-A(5). The petitioners also relied on the Law Commission reports and legislative intent to expedite the arbitration process.<\/p>\n

    Respondents’ Contentions<\/p>\n

    The respondents contended that the mandate of the arbitrator terminates by operation of law if the application for extension is not made within the mandate’s period as. The respondent emphasised that the use of the term “terminate” in Section 29-A(4) implies that the proceedings come to an end if the award is not made within the statutory time period.<\/p>\n

    Court’s Assessment<\/p>\n

    The Court delves into a detailed analysis of the statutory framework of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996<\/a>, particularly focusing on Section 29-A. The Court’s key conclusions are as follows:<\/p>\n

      \n
    1. \n

      Section 29-A(4) and (5) do not provide for further extensions of the mandate after 18 months from the date of completion of pleadings unless the Court extends the period beyond 18 months upon an application and sufficient cause being shown.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

    2. \n

      Section 29-A introduced strict time limits for making awards and the concept of mandate termination if the award is not made within the prescribed statutory timelines.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

    3. \n

      The Court concluded that under Section 29-A(4), the Court is empowered to extend the mandate of the arbitrator only if an application is made for extension during the subsistence of the mandate under Section 29-A(1) or Section 29-A(3). The Court emphasised that the mandate must be in existence when the application for extension is made.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

    4. \n

      The Court rejected the arguments based on reviving the mandate after termination and emphasised that the mandate does not automatically revive post-termination. The Court held that the termination of the mandate under Section 29-A(4) is a jurisdictional issue, and an award made after the mandate terminates would be considered void.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

    5. \n

      The Court also addressed the concerns about recalcitrant litigants, and noted that Section 29-A(6) allows for the substitution of arbitrators and the continuation of proceedings even if a party refuses to consent to an extension.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

      Court’s Decision<\/p>\n

      The Court held that Section 29-A(4)<\/a> of the Act<\/a> requires that an application for extending the arbitrator’s mandate must be made during the subsistence of the mandate. If the application is not made within this period, the mandate terminates by operation of law, and any subsequent award would be void.<\/p>\n

      The Court dismisses the petitions seeking an extension of the arbitrator’s mandate as they were filed after the termination of the mandates.<\/p>\n

      [Rohan Builders (India) (P) Ltd.<\/span> v. Berger Paints India Ltd.<\/span>, A.P. 328 of 2023, order dated 04-09-2023<\/span>]<\/p>\n

      *Judgment by Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n\n

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

      Mr. Soumya Roy Chowdhury, Mr. Chayan Gupta, Mr. Sarosij Dasgupta, Ms. Susrea Mitra, Mr. Ritesh Ganguly, Mr. Ramanuj Ray Chaudhuri, Mr. Rudraman Bhattacharya, Mr. Ratul Das, Mr. Sourajit Dasgupta, Mr. Souvik Mazumdar, Counsel for the Petitioners<\/p>\n

      Mr. Anirban Ray, Mr. Debraj Sahu, Mr. Snehasish Sen, Mr. Sayantan Bose, Ms. Ankita Choudhury, Counsel for the Respondent\/State<\/p>\n

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

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

      While cautioning the parties to the Arbitration proceedings, Calcutta High Court stated that parties should be vigilant in applying for extensions within the prescribed periods and dismissed the petitions seeking an extension of the arbitrator’s mandate.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67514,"featured_media":290502,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,10],"tags":[2633,40741,2689,57782,61125],"class_list":["post-301753","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-highcourts","tag-arbitral_award","tag-arbitration-and-conciliation-act-1996","tag-Calcutta_High_Court","tag-justice-moushumi-bhattacharya","tag-section-29-a4"],"yoast_head":"\nArbitral Award made after mandate's termination under Section 29-A(4) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 deemed void: Calcutta High Court | SCC Blog<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Calcutta High Court held that the termination of the mandate under Section 29-A(4) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is a jurisdictional issue, and any Arbitral Award made after the mandate's termination deemed void.\" \/>\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\/09\/18\/arbitral-award-termination-section-29-arbitration-conciliation-act-1996-void-calcutta-hc-scc-blog\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Calcutta High Court deems Arbitral Award void after termination of Arbitrator\u2019s mandate under Section 29-A(4) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Calcutta High Court held that the termination of the mandate under Section 29-A(4) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is a jurisdictional issue, and any Arbitral Award made after the mandate's termination deemed void.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/09\/18\/arbitral-award-termination-section-29-arbitration-conciliation-act-1996-void-calcutta-hc-scc-blog\/\" \/>\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=\"2023-09-18T06:30:54+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2023-09-18T06:47:12+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/calcutta-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=\"Ritu\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"Calcutta High Court deems Arbitral Award void after termination of Arbitrator\u2019s mandate under Section 29-A(4) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Ritu\" \/>\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\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/09\/18\/arbitral-award-termination-section-29-arbitration-conciliation-act-1996-void-calcutta-hc-scc-blog\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/09\/18\/arbitral-award-termination-section-29-arbitration-conciliation-act-1996-void-calcutta-hc-scc-blog\/\",\"name\":\"Arbitral Award made after mandate's termination under Section 29-A(4) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 deemed void: Calcutta High Court | SCC Blog\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/09\/18\/arbitral-award-termination-section-29-arbitration-conciliation-act-1996-void-calcutta-hc-scc-blog\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/09\/18\/arbitral-award-termination-section-29-arbitration-conciliation-act-1996-void-calcutta-hc-scc-blog\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/calcutta-high-court.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2023-09-18T06:30:54+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2023-09-18T06:47:12+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/392f265bae2f48f0f0d02b8e0e9015b9\"},\"description\":\"Calcutta High Court held that the termination of the mandate under Section 29-A(4) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is a jurisdictional issue, and any Arbitral Award made after the mandate's termination deemed void.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/09\/18\/arbitral-award-termination-section-29-arbitration-conciliation-act-1996-void-calcutta-hc-scc-blog\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/09\/18\/arbitral-award-termination-section-29-arbitration-conciliation-act-1996-void-calcutta-hc-scc-blog\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/09\/18\/arbitral-award-termination-section-29-arbitration-conciliation-act-1996-void-calcutta-hc-scc-blog\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/calcutta-high-court.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/calcutta-high-court.webp\",\"width\":886,\"height\":590,\"caption\":\"calcutta high court\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/09\/18\/arbitral-award-termination-section-29-arbitration-conciliation-act-1996-void-calcutta-hc-scc-blog\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Calcutta High Court deems Arbitral Award void after termination of Arbitrator\u2019s mandate under Section 29-A(4) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996\"}]},{\"@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\/392f265bae2f48f0f0d02b8e0e9015b9\",\"name\":\"Ritu\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/c47318594774c1fe55e3e8c85dcd1909276373d9bf11730032fc1a7d05d56a47?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/c47318594774c1fe55e3e8c85dcd1909276373d9bf11730032fc1a7d05d56a47?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Ritu\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_7\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Arbitral Award made after mandate's termination under Section 29-A(4) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 deemed void: Calcutta High Court | SCC Blog","description":"Calcutta High Court held that the termination of the mandate under Section 29-A(4) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is a jurisdictional issue, and any Arbitral Award made after the mandate's termination deemed void.","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\/09\/18\/arbitral-award-termination-section-29-arbitration-conciliation-act-1996-void-calcutta-hc-scc-blog\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Calcutta High Court deems Arbitral Award void after termination of Arbitrator\u2019s mandate under Section 29-A(4) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996","og_description":"Calcutta High Court held that the termination of the mandate under Section 29-A(4) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is a jurisdictional issue, and any Arbitral Award made after the mandate's termination deemed void.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/09\/18\/arbitral-award-termination-section-29-arbitration-conciliation-act-1996-void-calcutta-hc-scc-blog\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2023-09-18T06:30:54+00:00","article_modified_time":"2023-09-18T06:47:12+00:00","og_image":[{"width":886,"height":590,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/calcutta-high-court.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Ritu","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"Calcutta High Court deems Arbitral Award void after termination of Arbitrator\u2019s mandate under Section 29-A(4) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Ritu","Est. reading time":"4 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/09\/18\/arbitral-award-termination-section-29-arbitration-conciliation-act-1996-void-calcutta-hc-scc-blog\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/09\/18\/arbitral-award-termination-section-29-arbitration-conciliation-act-1996-void-calcutta-hc-scc-blog\/","name":"Arbitral Award made after mandate's termination under Section 29-A(4) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 deemed void: Calcutta High Court | SCC Blog","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/09\/18\/arbitral-award-termination-section-29-arbitration-conciliation-act-1996-void-calcutta-hc-scc-blog\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/09\/18\/arbitral-award-termination-section-29-arbitration-conciliation-act-1996-void-calcutta-hc-scc-blog\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/calcutta-high-court.webp","datePublished":"2023-09-18T06:30:54+00:00","dateModified":"2023-09-18T06:47:12+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/392f265bae2f48f0f0d02b8e0e9015b9"},"description":"Calcutta High Court held that the termination of the mandate under Section 29-A(4) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is a jurisdictional issue, and any Arbitral Award made after the mandate's termination deemed void.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/09\/18\/arbitral-award-termination-section-29-arbitration-conciliation-act-1996-void-calcutta-hc-scc-blog\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/09\/18\/arbitral-award-termination-section-29-arbitration-conciliation-act-1996-void-calcutta-hc-scc-blog\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/09\/18\/arbitral-award-termination-section-29-arbitration-conciliation-act-1996-void-calcutta-hc-scc-blog\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/calcutta-high-court.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/calcutta-high-court.webp","width":886,"height":590,"caption":"calcutta high court"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/09\/18\/arbitral-award-termination-section-29-arbitration-conciliation-act-1996-void-calcutta-hc-scc-blog\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Calcutta High Court deems Arbitral Award void after termination of Arbitrator\u2019s mandate under Section 29-A(4) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996"}]},{"@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\/392f265bae2f48f0f0d02b8e0e9015b9","name":"Ritu","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/c47318594774c1fe55e3e8c85dcd1909276373d9bf11730032fc1a7d05d56a47?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/c47318594774c1fe55e3e8c85dcd1909276373d9bf11730032fc1a7d05d56a47?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Ritu"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_7\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/calcutta-high-court.webp","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":308056,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/11\/30\/calcutta-high-court-allows-extension-of-arbitral-mandate-under-section-29a4-of-the-arbitration-and-conciliation-act-1996-scc-blog\/","url_meta":{"origin":301753,"position":0},"title":"Calcutta High Court allows 6 months extension of Arbitral Mandate under Section 29A(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996","author":"Ritu","date":"November 30, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"Calcutta High Court emphasized the distinction between vigilant litigants and those contributing to unnecessary delays in the arbitration process, ultimately ruling in favor of the petitioner.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"calcutta high court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/calcutta-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/calcutta-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/calcutta-high-court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/calcutta-high-court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":287070,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/03\/17\/arbitration-petition-calcutta-high-court-appointment-arbitrator-disqualification-section-12-seventh-schedule-arbitration-and-conciliation-act-1996-legal-research-news-scc-online-blog\/","url_meta":{"origin":301753,"position":1},"title":"All unilateral appointments of arbitrators are not invalid: Calcutta High Court","author":"Ritu","date":"March 17, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"Calcutta High Court held that all the unilateral appointment of arbitrators is not invalid unless the arbitrator's relationship falls within the Seventh Schedule to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Calcutta High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-604.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-604.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-604.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-604.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":297360,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/07\/20\/if-supplier-is-medium-enterprise-defaulting-buyer-need-not-to-pay-interest-three-times-of-bank-rate-calcutta-hc\/","url_meta":{"origin":301753,"position":2},"title":"Defaulting Buyers exempted from paying 3 times the Bank Interest Rate under Section 16 of the MSMED Act when supplier is \u2018medium enterprise\u2019: Calcutta High Court","author":"Ritu","date":"July 20, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cThe irrationality of the quantum of the costs imposed will be considered at the time of determining whether the Award should be set aside under Section 34 of the 1996 Act.\u201d","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"calcutta high court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/calcutta-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/calcutta-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/calcutta-high-court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/calcutta-high-court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":298911,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/09\/compliance-s19-msmed-act-is-a-pre-requisite-for-seeking-stay-arbitral-award-calcutta-hc\/","url_meta":{"origin":301753,"position":3},"title":"Compliance of Section 19 of MSMED Act is a pre-requisite for seeking Stay on Arbitral Award: Calcutta High Court","author":"Ritu","date":"August 9, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"The Calcutta High Court held that failure to comply with procedural requirements under Section 19 of the MSMED Act renders application for stay of Arbitral Award as not maintainable.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"calcutta high court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/calcutta-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/calcutta-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/calcutta-high-court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/calcutta-high-court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":306874,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/11\/09\/supreme-court-stays-cal-hc-order-restricting-application-filed-s-29a4-arbitration-act-after-expiry-term-of-tribunal\/","url_meta":{"origin":301753,"position":4},"title":"Supreme Court stays Calcutta HC order which restricted application filed under S.29A(4) of Arbitration Act after expiry of term of the Tribunal","author":"Apoorva","date":"November 9, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court issued notice in the present SLP and tagged it with SLP titled Rohan Builders (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. Berger Paints India Ltd.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"application under S.29A","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/application-under-S.29A.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/application-under-S.29A.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/application-under-S.29A.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/application-under-S.29A.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":299429,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/16\/unambiguous-intent-required-for-incorporation-arbitration-clause-by-reference-calcutta-hc\/","url_meta":{"origin":301753,"position":5},"title":"Unambiguous intent required for incorporating Arbitration Clause by reference under Section 7(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: Calcutta High Court","author":"Ritu","date":"August 16, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"In the instant matter, the primary issue was the incorporation of arbitration clauses from the Master Facility Agreement and Settlement Agreement and the maintainability of a composite reference.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"calcutta high court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/calcutta-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/calcutta-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/calcutta-high-court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/calcutta-high-court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/301753","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\/67514"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=301753"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/301753\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/290502"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=301753"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=301753"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=301753"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}