Bombay High Court
Paresh Gordhandas Thakkar And 2 Ors vs Hathway Cable And Datacom Ltd. And 2 Ors on 27 September, 2021
Author: G. S. Kulkarni
Bench: G. S. Kulkarni
916-954.ARBPLNo.3812020 & Connected.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
ARBITRATION PETITION (L) NO. 381 OF 2020
ICATCH Communications India Limited ... Petitioner
V/s.
The Divisional Manager/Authorized Personnel & Anr. ... Respondents
.....
Adv. Harshavardhan G. Khambete a/w. Adv. Akash Warang for the
Petitioner.
Adv. Aaushi Shah i/b. INDIALAW LLP. for the Respondents.
.....
WITH
COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 434 OF 2020
Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited ... Petitioner
V/s.
Anurag Gupta & Anr. ... Respondents
.....
Mr. Reehan Ajmerwalla i/b. M/s. Manilal Kher Ambalal & Co., Advocate for
the Petitioner.
None for the Respondents.
.....
WITH
ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 437 OF 2019
Chembur Ashirwad Co-operative ... Petitioner
V/s.
G A Builders Private Limited ... Respondent
.....
Mr. Amol K. Tembe, Advocate for the Petitioner.
None for the Respondent.
.....
Gaikwad RD 1/19
916-954.ARBPLNo.3812020 & Connected.doc
WITH
COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 440 OF 2020
Paresh Gordhandas Thakkar & Ors. ... Petitioners
V/s.
M/s. Hathway Cable & Datacom Ltd. & Ors. ... Respondents
.....
Mr. Vijay M. Vaghela, Advocate for the Petitioners.
None for the Respondents.
.....
WITH
COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 441 OF 2020
Allana Cold Storage Private Limited ... Petitioner
V/s.
Al Mafko Frozen Foods Pvt. Ltd. ... Respondent
.....
Ms. Pooja Batra a/w. Mr. Manas Kotak i/b. Desai & Diwanji, Advocate for
the Petitioner.
None for the Respondent.
.....
WITH
ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 444 OF 2020
GLEG Engineers Pvt. Ltd. ... Petitioner
V/s.
Union of India ... Respondent
.....
Mr. Sarosh Mohammed a/w. Mr. Rishabh Deshpande i/b. Praxis Legal,
Advocate for the Petitioner.
None for the Respondent.
.....
WITH
ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 451 OF 2020
Admirecon Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. ... Petitioner
V/s.
Gurumahima Heights Co-op. Housing Society Limited ... Respondent
Gaikwad RD 2/19
916-954.ARBPLNo.3812020 & Connected.doc
.....
Mr. Sarosh Mohammed a/w. Mr. Rishabh Deshpande i/b. Praxis Legal,
Advocate for the Petitioner.
None for the Respondent.
.....
WITH
COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION PETITION (L) NO. 458 OF 2020
Supermax Personal Care Private Limited ... Petitioner
V/s.
Tigaksha Metallics Private Limited ... Respondent
.....
Mr. Ashish Kamat with Mr. Anusha Jacob and Ms. Trisha Sarkar i/b. AZB &
Partners, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. Sagar Wagle i/b. Ms. Riddhi A. Pandit, Advocate for the Respondent.
.....
WITH
ARBITRATION PETITION (L) NO. 9657 OF 2020
Elecon Engineering Company Ltd. ... Petitioner
V/s.
Ducon Technologies (I) Private Limited ... Respondent
.....
None for the Petitioner.
None for the Respondents.
.....
WITH
ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 5 OF 2021
Arihant Superstructures Ltd. ... Petitioner
V/s.
Laxman Dharma Patil & Ors. ... Respondents
.....
Ms. Gunjan Jayakar i/b. Miheer Jayakar, Advocate for the Petitioner.
None for the Respondent.
.....
Gaikwad RD 3/19
916-954.ARBPLNo.3812020 & Connected.doc
WITH
ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 15 OF 2021
Bharat Construction Company (Bombay) ... Petitioner
V/s.
Encee Rail Engineers and Fabricators Pvt. Ltd. ... Respondent
.....
Adv. Sebin Michel Joseph a/w. Av. Arundhati Saste for the Petitioner.
None for the Respondent.
.....
WITH
ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 33 OF 2021
Riddhi Siddhi Enterprises ... Petitioner
V/s.
Marlex Appliances Pvt. Ltd. ... Respondents
.....
None for the Petitioner.
None for the Respondent.
.....
WITH
ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 44 OF 2021
Satjyot Hoteliers and Contractors Pvt. Ltd. ... Petitioner
V/s.
Vijay Jadhav & Ors. ... Respondents
.....
None for the Petitioner.
None for the Respondents.
.....
WITH
ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 122 OF 2021
GTL Ltd. ... Petitioner
V/s.
Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. ... Respondent
.....
Adv.Suyash Gadre a/w. Adv. Rucha Surve i/b. Alathea Law LLP for the
Petitioner.
None for the Respondent.
.....
Gaikwad RD 4/19
916-954.ARBPLNo.3812020 & Connected.doc
WITH
ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 123 OF 2021
Environ Solar Pvt. Ltd. ... Petitioner
V/s.
ATC Telecom Infrastructure Services Ltd. ... Respondent
.....
Adv. Harshita Joglekar a/w. Adv. Vandana Chamle i/b. Neeti Niyaman for
the Petitioner.
None for the Respondent.
.....
WITH
ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 134 OF 2021
Dr. Nissar Abdul Satar Pathan & Anr. ... Petitioners
V/s.
Pramod P. Pisal & Ors. ... Respondents
.....
Adv. Bipin Chandra i/b. Mahesh Menon for the Petitioners.
None for the Respondent.
.....
WITH
ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 135 OF 2021
Mohd. Ashraf M. Gaus Kadri ... Petitioner
V/s.
Pramod P. Pisal, Proprietor of
M/s.Unity Land Consultancy & Ors. ... Respondents
.....
Adv. Bipin Chandra i/b. Mahesh Menon for the Petitioner.
None for the Respondent.
.....
WITH
ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 136 OF 2021
Dr. Sameer Sattar Pathan & Anr. ... Petitioners
V/s.
Pramod P. Pisal, Proprietor of
Unity Land Consultancy & Ors. ... Respondents
Gaikwad RD 5/19
916-954.ARBPLNo.3812020 & Connected.doc
.....
Adv. Bipin Chandra i/b. Mahesh Menon for the Petitioner.
None for the Respondent.
.....
WITH
ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 138 OF 2021
Mohammad Altaf Shaikh ... Petitioner
V/s.
Pramod P. Pisal, Proprietor of
Unity Land Consultancy & Ors. ... Respondents
.....
Adv. Bipin Chandra i/b. Mahesh Menon for the Petitioner.
None for the Respondent.
.....
WITH
ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 153 OF 2021
Govind Niwas Cooperative Hsg. Scty. Ltd. ... Petitioner
V/s.
A.A. Estates Pvt. Ltd. (An R.N.A. Corp. Group
Company Pvt. Ltd.) ... Respondent
.....
Mr. Manoj Prajapati a/w. Mr. Mohit Gadkari i/b. Mohit Gadkari, Advocate
for the Petitioner.
None for the Respondent.
.....
WITH
ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 156 OF 2021
Omkara Assets Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd. ... Petitioner
V/s.
Panda Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. ... Respondent
.....
Adv. Anand Poojari a/w. Adv. Nikita Pawar i/b. S.I. Joshi, Advocate for the
Petitioner.
None for the Respondent.
.....
Gaikwad RD 6/19
916-954.ARBPLNo.3812020 & Connected.doc
WITH
ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 213 OF 2021
Nobel Biocare India Pvt. Ltd. ... Petitioner
V/s.
Achal Ramesh ... Respondent
.....
Adv. Aaushi Shah i/b. INDIALAW LLP Advocate for the Petitioner.
None for the Respondent.
.....
WITH
COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 220 OF 2021
Mukesh Mohan Patel & Anr. ... Petitioners
V/s.
Anil Vadilal Shah & Ors, ... Respondents
.....
Ms. Sanaea Laskari i/b. Rashmikant and Partners, Advocate for the
Petitioners.
Ms. Masina Shaikh, Advocate for the Respondents.
.....
WITH
ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 224 OF 2021
Kantilal Premji Maru & Anr. ... Petitioners
V/s.
Veena Mahendra Gogri & Anr. ... Respondents
.....
Mr. Rajendra Mishra i/b. M/s. Solicis Lex, Advocate for the Petitioner.
None for the Respondent.
.....
WITH
ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 234 OF 2021
Nobel Biocare India Pvt. Ltd.
(formerly known as DHR Holding India Pvt. Ltd.) ... Petitioner
V/s.
Dr.Trinath Kar ... Respondent
.....
Adv. Aaushi Shah i/b. INDIALAW LLP Advocate for the Petitioner.
None for the Respondent.
.....
Gaikwad RD 7/19
916-954.ARBPLNo.3812020 & Connected.doc
WITH
COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 234 OF 2021
Mukesh Mohan Patel & Ors. ... Petitioners
V/s.
Anil Vadilal Shah & Ors. ... Respondents
.....
Ms. Sanaea Laskari i/b. Rashmikant and Partners, Advocate for the
Petitioners.
Ms. Masina Shaikh, Advocate for the Respondents.
.....
WITH
ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 256 OF 2021
Nobel Biocare India Pvt. Ltd.
(formerly known as DHR Holding India Pvt. Ltd. ... Petitioner
V/s.
Achal Ramesh ... Respondent
.....
Adv. Aaushi Shah I/B. INDIALAW LLP Advocate for the Petitioner.
None for the Respondent.
.....
WITH
ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 257 OF 2021
Astonfield Renewables Pvt. Ltd. ... Petitioner
V/s.
Astonfield Solar Rajasthan Pvt. Ltd. ... Respondent
.....
Mr. Anish Karande a/w. Adv. Rabab Ghugharia, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Ms. Chitra Rentala a/w. Ms. Saloni Gupta i/b. Trilegal for the Respondent.
.....
WITH
ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 303 OF 2021
Homai Mahal Premises Co-op. Society Ltd. ... Petitioner
V/s.
M/s.Icon Builders and Developers ... Respondent
.....
Mr. Rajendra Mishra i/b. M/s. Solicis Lex, Advocate for the Petitioner.
None for the Respondent.
.....
Gaikwad RD 8/19
916-954.ARBPLNo.3812020 & Connected.doc
WITH
COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 367 OF 2021
Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. ... Petitioner
V/s.
The Director General of Naval Project(MB) ... Respondent
.....
None for the Petitioner.
None for the Respondent.
.....
WITH
COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 521 OF 2021
Shahnawaz Enterprises ... Petitioner
V/s.
Birla Estates Earlier known as Century
International ( A Division of Century Textiles
and Industries Ltd.) ... Respondent
.....
None for the Petitioner.
None for the Respondent.
.....
WITH
COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION PETITION (L) NO. 16466 OF 2021
Tsur Ben David ... Petitioner
V/s.
CQM Cooling Quality Management Ltd. & Ors. ... Respondents
.....
Counsel Malcolm Singanporia a/w. Mr. Suddhasattwa Roy & Ms. Aarti
Sonawane i/b. VIS Legis Law, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Ms. Bhakti Popat, Advocate for the Respondent No.1/(CQM).
Adv. Kunal Kanungo a/w. Adv. Rahul Punjabi i/b. Adv. S. Venkateshwar, for
Respondent No.3.
.....
WITH
COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION PETITION (L) NO. 18411 OF 2021
Royal Palms Property Pvt. Ltd. ... Petitioner
V/s.
Summit Apartment (SRA) CHS Limited ... Respondent
Gaikwad RD 9/19
916-954.ARBPLNo.3812020 & Connected.doc
.....
None for the Petitioner.
None for the Respondent.
.....
WITH
ARBITRATION PETITION (L) NO. 18889 OF 2021
Rishab Rodilal Jain ... Petitioner
V/s.
Sunderlal Sewailal Jain ... Respondent
.....
None for the Petitioner.
None for the Respondent.
.....
WITH
COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION PETITION (L) NO. 20463 OF 2021
M/s. Mishal Constructions Pvt. Ltd. ... Petitioner
V/s.
Jai Bhavani Mata CHS Limited ... Respondent
.....
None for the Petitioner.
Adv. Sriraj Menon i/b. M/s. MJ Juris for the Respondent.
.....
WITH
ARBITRATION PETITION (L) NO. 20560 OF 2021
D. N. Nagar Saikripa Housing Society Limited ... Petitioner
V/s.
Shivam Parivar Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd. ... Respondent
.....
None for the Petitioner.
None for the Respondent.
.....
C0RAM : G. S. KULKARNI, J.
DATE : SEPTEMBER 27, 2021.
1 These are petitions filed under Section 29A of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, "ACA"), wherein the petitioners have
prayed for extension of the mandate of the arbitral tribunal.
Gaikwad RD 10/19
916-954.ARBPLNo.3812020 & Connected.doc
2 In considering the prayers as made in these petitions, the Court
would be required to consider the intervening circumstances which had
taken place and/or were prevailing during the pendency of these petitions,
namely, the entire country being engulfed by the Covid-19 pandemic from
the month of March 2020. It is a matter of common knowledge that for a
substantial period the pandemic severely affected not only the normal Court
proceedings, but equally affected the pending arbitral proceedings albeit
some exceptions. The effect was certainly of a nature that the arbitral
proceedings could not proceed in the usual normal manner as they could
have otherwise proceeded. Considering these circumstances, the orders
which were passed by the Supreme Court in the context of extension of
limitation and relevant to Section 29A of the ACA are required to be noted.
3 On 23rd March 2020, the Supreme Court in the proceedings of Suo-
Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No(S).3/2020 in the case of in Re : Cognizance
for Extension of Limitation1 passed orders on the period of limitation being
extended with effect from 15 March 2020 till further orders. Such order
reads thus :
"1. This Court has taken Suo Motu cognizance of the situation
arising out of the challenge faced by the country on account of Covid-19
Virus and resultant difculties that may be faced by litigants across the
country in fling their petitions/applications/suits/ appeals/all other
proceedings within the period of limitation prescribed under the general
law of limitation or under Special Laws (both Central and/or State).
1 (2020) 19 SCC 10.
Gaikwad RD 11/19
916-954.ARBPLNo.3812020 & Connected.doc
2. To obviate such difculties and to ensure that lawyers/litigants
do not have to come physically to fle such proceedings in respective
Courts/Tribunals across the country including this Court, it is hereby
ordered that a period of limitation in all such proceedings, irrespective of
the limitation prescribed under the general law or Special Laws whether
condonable or not shall stand extended w.e.f. 15th March 2020 till
further order/s to be passed by this Court in present proceedings.
3. We are exercising this power under Article 142 read with Article
141 of the Constitution of India and declare that this order is a binding
order within the meaning of Article 141 on all Courts/Tribunals and
authorities.
4. This order may be brought to the notice of all High Courts for
being communicated to all subordinate Courts/Tribunals within their
respective jurisdiction.
5. Issue notice to all the Registrars General of the High Courts,
returnable in four weeks."
4 Thereafter, in such suo-moto proceedings the Supreme Court passed a
further Order2 on 6th May 2020 touching the ACA, which also needs to be
noted. It reads thus:-
"1. By way of fling this application for directions, the applicant has
made the following prayer :
"To issue appropriate directions qua (i) arbitration proceedings
in relation to section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
and (ii) initiation of proceedings under section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881;"
2. In view of this Court's earlier order dated 23.03.2020 passed in
Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No.3/2020 and taking into consideration the
efect of the Corona Virus (CVVIC 19) and resultant difculties being
faced by the lawyers and litigants and with a view to obviate such
difculties and to ensure that lawyers/litigants do not have to come
physically to fle such proceedings in respective Courts/Tribunal across
the country including this Court, it is hereby ordered that all periods
of limitation prescribed under the Arbitration and Conciliation
Act, 1996 and under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments
Act 1881 shall be extended with efect from 15.03.2020 till
further orders to be passed by this Court in the present
proceedings.
3. In case the limitation has expired after 15.03.2020 then the
period from 15.03.2020 till the date on which the lockdown is lifted in
the jurisdictional area where the dispute lies or where the cause of
action arises shall be extended for a period of 15 days after the lifting of
lockdown.
2 2020 SCC OnLine SC 434.
Gaikwad RD 12/19
916-954.ARBPLNo.3812020 & Connected.doc
4. In view of the above, the instant interlocutory application is
disposed of.
Ia No.48375/2020 - Clarifcation/Cirection and IA No.48511/2020 -
Clarifcation/Cirection and IA No.48461/2020 - Clarifcation/ Cirection
and IA No.48374/2020 - Intervention Application and IA No.48416/2020 -
Intervention Application and IA No.48408/2020 - Intervention Application
5. Issue notice.
6. Waive service on behalf of the respondent - Union of India since
Mr. K. K. Venugopal, learned Attorney General for India and Mr. Tushar
Mehta, learned Solicitor General, appear on its behalf. Let notice be
issued to other respondents."
(emphasis supplied)
5 On 10th July 2020, the Supreme Court passed a further order 3
extending the earlier orders dated 23rd March 2020 and 6th May 2020 in the
context of Section 29A of the ACA. The relevant extract of the said order is
as follows:-
"1. Parties have prayed to this Court for extending the time where
limitation is to expire during the period when there is a lockdown in view
of CVVIC-19 or the time to perform a particular act is to expire during
the lockdown.
I.A. No. 49221/2020-Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,
1996
2. Taken on Board.
3. In Suo Moto Writ Petition (C) No. 3/2020, by our orders dated
23.03.2020 and 06.05.2020, we ordered that all periods of limitation
prescribed under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 shall be
extended w.e.f. 15.03.2020 till further orders.
4. Learned Attorney General has sought a minor modifcation in the
aforesaid orders.
5. Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 does
not prescribe a period of limitation but fxes a time to do certain
acts, i.e. making an arbitral award within a prescribed time. We,
accordingly, direct that the aforesaid orders shall also apply for
extension of time limit for passing arbitral award Under Section
29A of the said Act......."
(emphasis supplied)
3 (2020) 9 Supreme Court Cases 468.
Gaikwad RD 13/19
916-954.ARBPLNo.3812020 & Connected.doc
6 From the above order passed by the Supreme Court, it is clear that
the Supreme Court applied the directions as contained in its previous orders
dated 23rd March 2020 and 6th May 2020 for extension of time for passing
of an arbitral award under Section 29A of the said Act. Thus by virtue of
these orders of the Supreme Court, the time to publish an award, in the
pending arbitral proceedings stood extended with effect from 15 th March
2020 until further orders to be passed by the Supreme Court.
7 The Supreme Court passed a further Order on 8 th March 20214
whereby the Supreme Court in disposing of the suo-moto proceedings noted
that the lockdown had been lifted as the country was returning to normalcy.
In doing so in the context of Section 29A of the ACA, the Supreme Court
observed that the period from 15 th March 2020 till 14th March 2021 shall
stand excluded in computing the period prescribed under Section 29A of
the ACA. The relevant extract of the said order needs to be noted, which
reads thus :
1. Cue to the onset of CVVIC-19 pandemic, this Court took suo
motu cognizance of the situation arising from difculties that might be
faced by the litigants across the country in fling petitions/applications/
suits/appeals/all other proceedings within the period of limitation
prescribed under the general law of limitation or under any special laws
(both Central or State). By an order dated 27-3-2020 (23-3-2020) this
Court extended the period of limitation prescribed under the general law
or special laws whether compoundable or not with efect from 15-3-2020
till further orders. The order dated 15-3-2020 was extended from time to
time. Though, we have not seen the end of the pandemic, there is
considerable improvement. The lockdown has been lifted and the
country is returning to normalcy. Almost all the Courts and Tribunals are
functioning either physically or by virtual mode. We are of the opinion
4 (2021) 5 Supreme Court Cases 452.
Gaikwad RD 14/19
916-954.ARBPLNo.3812020 & Connected.doc
that the order dated 15-3-2020 has served its purpose and in view of the
changing scenario relating to the pandemic, the extension of limitation
should come to an end.
2. We have considered the suggestions of the learned Attorney
General for India regarding the future course of action. We deem it
appropriate to issue the following directions :
2.1. In computing the period of limitation for any suit,appeal,
application or proceeding, the period from 15-3-2020 till 14-3-
2021 shall stand excluded. Consequently, the balance period
of limitation remaining as on 15-3-2020, if any, shall become
available with efect from 15-3-2021.
2.2. In cases where the limitation would have expired during the
period between 15-3-2020 till 14.03.2021, notwithstanding
the actual balance period of limitation remaining, all persons
shall have a limitation period of 90 days from 15-3-2021. In
the event the actual balance period of limitation remaining,
with efect from 15-3-2021, is greater than 90 days, that
longer period shall apply.
2.3. The period from 15-3-2020 till 14-3-2021 shall also
stand excluded in computing the periods prescribed
under Sections 23(4) and 29A of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996, ................"
(emphasis supplied)
8 However in or about April, 2021, again throughout the country
adverse circumstances emerged on the pandemic front. Considering such
circumstances, the Supreme Court passed a further Order dated 27 th April
20215, on the suo-motu proceedings inter alia extending the period from
14th March 2021 till further orders to stand excluded in computing the
periods prescribed under Section 23(4) and Section 29 of the ACA. The
following are the directions of the Supreme Court relevant to the provisions
of Section 29-A:-
"6. We also take judicial notice of the fact that the steep rise in
CVVIC-19 Virus cases is not limited to Celhi alone but it has engulfed the
entire nation. The extraordinary situation caused by the sudden and
second outburst of CVVIC-19 Virus, thus, requires extraordinary
5 2021 SCC OnLine SC 373.
Gaikwad RD 15/19
916-954.ARBPLNo.3812020 & Connected.doc
measures to minimize the hardship of litigant-public in all the states.
We, therefore, restore the order dated 23 rd March, 2020 and in
continuation of the order dated 8 th March, 2021 direct that the period(s)
of limitation, as prescribed under any general or special laws in respect
of all judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings, whether condonable or not,
shall stand extended till further orders.
7. It is further clarifed that the period from 14 th March,
2021 till further orders shall also stand excluded in computing
the periods prescribed under Sections 23(4) and 29A of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.............. "
(emphasis supplied)
9 Lastly, the Supreme Court by an Order passed on 23rd September
20216 passed on the said suo-motu proceedings as also on Miscellaneous
Application No.665 of 2021 directed that the period from 15 March 2020
till 2 October 2021 shall stand excluded in computing the period prescribed
inter alia under Section 29 A of the ACA. The following are the directions
of the Supreme Court:-
I. In computing the period of limitation for any suit, appeal,
application or proceeding, the period from 15.03.2020 till 02.10.2021
shall stand excluded. Consequently, the balance period of limitation
remaining as on 15.03.2021, if any, shall become available with efect
from 03.10.2021.
II. In cases where the limitation would have expired during the
period between 15.03.2020 till 02.10.2021, notwithstanding the actual
balance period of limitation remaining, all persons shall have a limitation
period of 90 days from 03.10.2021. In the event the actual balance
period of limitation remaining, with efect from 03.10.2021, is greater
than 90 days, that longer period shall apply.
III. The period from 15.03.2020 till 02.10.2021 shall also
stand excluded in computing the periods prescribed under
Sections 23(4) and 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,
1996, Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and provisos (b)
and (c) of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and any
other laws, which prescribe period(s) of limitation for instituting
proceedings, outer limits (within which the court or tribunal can condone
delay) and termination of proceedings.
IV. The Government of India shall amend the guidelines for
containment zones, to state.
6 M.A. No.665 of 2021 in SMW(C) No.3 of 2020
Gaikwad RD 16/19
916-954.ARBPLNo.3812020 & Connected.doc
"Regulated movement will be allowed for medical emergencies,
provision of essential goods and services, and other necessary
functions, such as, time bound applications, including for legal
purposes, and educational and job-related requirements."
As a sequel to disposal of MA No.665/2021, pending interlocutory
applications, including the applications for intervention/impleadment, also
stand disposed of. "
(emphasis supplied)
10 From the above orders passed by the Supreme Court, the clear
position which emerges is that the period from 15 th March 2020 till 2nd
October 2021 is directed to be excluded in computing the period prescribed
under Section 29A of the ACA. This would mean that by virtue of the said
orders of the Supreme Court, the mandate of the tribunal, if has expired
during the period 15th March 2020 till 2nd October 2021, the said period
would stand excluded in computing the period prescribed under Section
29A of the ACA. It would be thus required to be observed that for the
purpose of Sub-section (2) of Section 29A of the ACA, which stipulates a
requirement, that the award in matters other than international commercial
arbitrations shall be made by the arbitral tribunal, within a period of twelve
months from the date of the completion of pleadings under sub-section (4)
of Section 23 of the ACA, as also for the provisions of sub-section (3) and
sub-section (4) of Section 29A, the period between 15 th March 2020 till 2nd
October 2021 would be required to be excluded.
11 On the above backdrop, it would be necessary to observe that there
Gaikwad RD 17/19
916-954.ARBPLNo.3812020 & Connected.doc
would be two categories of arbitral proceedings, firstly where the mandate
has already come to an end prior to 15 th March 2020 and those cases where
mandate has come to an end after 2nd October 2021.
12 It appears that the present petitions are filed in relation to a period
post 15th March 2020 during which the mandate of the arbitral tribunal had
either expired or was to expire also during the period when the pandemic
continued. In these circumstances, the petitioners would become entitled
for an extension of the mandate of the arbitral tribunal as ordered by the
Supreme Court.
13 As a result of the above discussion, it is in the interest of justice that
these petitions are disposed of by the following order :
ORDER
(i) In respect of the pending arbitral proceedings the petitioners would be entitled to the benefit of the order dated 23 rd September 2021 (supra) passed by the Supreme Court for exclusion of the period from 15th March 2020 to 2nd October 2021 in computing the period under Section 29A of the ACA.
(ii) In the event, the arbitral proceedings for any reason have remained pending and/or are not concluded, in such event, the mandate of the arbitral tribunal is extended for a period of one year from today.
Gaikwad RD 18/19916-954.ARBPLNo.3812020 & Connected.doc
(iii) All contentions of the parties on the merits of the arbitral proceedings are respectively kept open.
(iv) The petitions are disposed of in above terms.
(v) No costs.
(G. S. KULKARNI, J.)
Digitally
signed by RAJU
DATTATRAYA
RAJU GAIKWAD
DATTATRAYA
GAIKWAD Date:
2021.10.12
21:44:51
+0530
Gaikwad RD 19/19