Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (2.54 seconds)
Documents citing M/S.Suryadev Alloys And Power Pvt. Ltd vs M/S. Shri Govindaraja Textiles Pvt. Ltd on 13 September, 2019

Rkec Projects Limited vs The Cochin Port Trust on 20 March, 2024

In Suryadev Alloys and Power Pvt. Ltd v. Shri.Govindaraja Textiles Pvt. Ltd., a learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court analysed the provisions of Section 29A(1), (3), (4) and (5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and came to the conclusion that unlike the provisions of Section 28(1) of the 1940 Act which gave wide powers to the Court to enlarge the time for making an award even after the expiry of the time, the 1996 Act has curtailed these powers and restricted the extension only within the provisions of Section 29A(3) and 29A(4). It was found that the Court can extend the period for making of the award after the expiry of one year period under Section 29A(1) or the extended period under Section 29A(3). However, even the Court cannot ratify an award ex post facto by extending the period in a petition filed under Section 34 by an aggrieved party. It was found that Section 28(1) of the 1940 Act gave express power to the Court to enlarge the time even after the making of the Award. However, since a similar provision is not available in Section 29A of the 1996 Act, the mandate of the Arbitrator would stand terminated on the expiry of the period provided unless extended I.A.No.2/2023 in A.R. No.52/2019 & I.A.No.1/2023 in A.R. No.53/2019 -: 6 :- by the Court.
Kerala High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - A Sivaraman - Full Document

Rkec Projects Limited vs Cochin Port Trust on 20 March, 2024

In Suryadev Alloys and Power Pvt. Ltd v. Shri.Govindaraja Textiles Pvt. Ltd., a learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court analysed the provisions of Section 29A(1), (3), (4) and (5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and came to the conclusion that unlike the provisions of Section 28(1) of the 1940 Act which gave wide powers to the Court to enlarge the time for making an award even after the expiry of the time, the 1996 Act has curtailed these powers and restricted the extension only within the provisions of Section 29A(3) and 29A(4). It was found that the Court can extend the period for making of the award after the expiry of one year period under Section 29A(1) or the extended period under Section 29A(3). However, even the Court cannot ratify an award ex post facto by extending the period in a petition filed under Section 34 by an aggrieved party. It was found that Section 28(1) of the 1940 Act gave express power to the Court to enlarge the time even after the making of the Award. However, since a similar provision is not available in Section 29A of the 1996 Act, the mandate of the Arbitrator would stand terminated on the expiry of the period provided unless extended I.A.No.2/2023 in A.R. No.52/2019 & I.A.No.1/2023 in A.R. No.53/2019 -: 6 :- by the Court.
Kerala High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - A Sivaraman - Full Document

Ayyasamy vs A.Shanmugavel (Died) ....1St on 21 March, 2024

20.The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents had relied upon the judgement of our High Court reported in 2020 (6) MLJ 178 (Suryadev Alloys and Power Pvt.Ltd.,Vs. Shri Govindaraja Textiles Pvt.Ltd.) and contended that the Arbitral Tribunal becomes functus officio after 12 months, unless the said period is extended by the 13/34 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A(MD).No.108 of 2020 written consent submitted by the parties.
Madras High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - R Vijayakumar - Full Document

M/S Power Mech Projects Ltd vs M/S Doosan Power Systems India Pvt. Ltd. on 7 May, 2024

In Suryadev Alloys and Power Pvt. Ltd. v. Shri Govindaraja Textiles Pvt. Ltd. (2020 SCC OnLine Mad 7858) the Madras High Court also took a similar view, and held that extension for making of the award may be granted by the Court, even after the period under Section 29A(1) or Section 29A(3) of the 1996 Act has expired. However, after the award is passed, the mandate cannot be extended in a petition under Section 34 of the 1996 Act.
Delhi High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - P M Singh - Full Document

Sri. Charantayya Sangayya Hiremath vs Hindustan Petroleum Corp. Ltd on 14 February, 2022

25. The learned counsel for the plaintiff has drawn the court attention on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2020 SCC Online Mad. 7858 in between Suryadev Alloys Pvt. Ltd. Vs Govind Raj Textiles Pvt. Ltd., On careful perusal of the said judgment, the award has been challenged on the ground the arbitrator had failed to award within the time fixed as per the agreement and held the arbitrator has proceeded to make the award when he has became functuous 48 Com.A.S.No.199/2018 officious since his mandate had terminated on the expiry of 6 months period from the date of receipt of the order of the court extending time. Therefore, the appeal which filed was came to be dismissed, the award which passed by the sole arbitrator was came to be set aside. In the instant case also the sole arbitrator has not passed the award either Sec.29-A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act nor the time which fixed in the agreement. Therefore, judgment which relied is directly applicable to the case on hand.
Bangalore District Court Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next