INDIA Trends and Developments Contributed by: Amit Mishra and Mitakshara Goyal, Svarniti Law Offices
Notably, the Delhi High court in Faith Constructions v N.W.G.E.L Churc h ruled that recourse can be made to the court where the cause of action arose if there is no defined “seat”, “venue” or “place” of arbitration. Supreme Court upholds post-expiry time extensions for arbitral awards under Section 29A In Rohan Builders (India) Pvt. Ltd. v Berger Paints India Ltd , the Court addressed the strict 12+6 month timeline for making domestic awards as per Section 29A. It held that courts can grant an extension even if approached after the arbitral mandate has techni - cally expired, as long as sufficient cause is shown. The tribunal’s mandate does not “automatically and absolutely” terminate at the deadline if a belated but bona fide extension application is made. The judges are still to impose conditions to prevent abuse when granting more time. This ruling prevents arbitrations from derailing due to procedural time lapses, as long as they are justified.
Supreme Court rules that jurisdictional objections must be raised timely and expressly In Gayatri Projects Ltd v Madhya Pradesh Road Devel- opment Corporation , the Supreme Court held that if a party fails to raise jurisdictional objections at the start of arbitration or with the statement of defence, then it cannot challenge the tribunal’s authority at a later date. Merely taking part in the proceedings without protest is not enough. The Court emphasised that a valid waiver must be clear and intentional, rather than implied through silence or conduct. This deci - sion strengthens procedural discipline and discour - ages delayed objections as a fallback tactic after an unfavourable award.
344 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook