Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

b) The learned Counsel would also contend that as per the terms of the Agreement, the Arbitral proceedings was found in Clause No.63 of the LPG Cylinder Transport Contract Agreement.

Clause 63 (b) provides that the Award has to be made within two years, upon the Arbitrator entering reference or within such extended time, not exceeding a further period of 12 months. In the instant case, the Arbitrator was appointed originally in the year 2007 and therefore the award had to be pronounced by 2009. Even assuming that the time would start ticking from the date of the appointment of the second respondent, the Arbitral award has been passed much beyond the period provided under the agreement since the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal had come to an end in the month of August 2009 and the award that has been passed as late as in the year 2014. Therefore the said award is non-est and without https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ authority.

(iii) Arbitrator not adhering to the time schedule:

A) The 2nd respondent has clearly violated the time schedule which has been fixed under Clause 63 (b) of the Arbitration Agreement between the parties. When perusing the records, it is seen that the Original Arbitrator was appointed in the year 2007 and in terms of the said Clause, the Arbitral proceedings ought to have been concluded by 2009. Even assuming that the time would start ticking from the date on which the second respondent/Arbitrator had entered reference, the Arbitral proceedings ought to have been concluded by 12.08.2009 and adding a further 12 months as provided under this Clause, the Award ought to have been passed by https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 12.08.2010. However, the records would clearly indicate that the award has been passed four years later which is in violation of the terms of the agreement.