Registrar Has No Power To Cancel Registered Sale Deeds: Madras High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Exclusive Jurisdiction MP High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Against Principal of Sacred Heart Convent High School in Forced Conversion Case Employees Of Registered Societies Cannot Claim Article 311 Protection: Delhi High Court Clarifies Limits Of Constitutional Safeguards In Private Employment Maintenance Cannot Be Doubled Without Cogent Reasons, Wife's Education And Earning Capacity Relevant Factors: Gujarat High Court A Foreign Award Must First Be "Recognised" Before It Becomes A Decree: Bombay High Court A Registered Will Does Not Become Genuine Merely Because It Is Registered: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Suspicious Testament Compensation Under Railways Act Requires Proof of Bona Fide Passenger – Mere GRP Entry and Medical Records Cannot Establish ‘Untoward Incident’: Delhi High Court Tenancy Rights Cannot Be Bequeathed By Will: Himachal Pradesh High Court Declares Mutation Based On Tenant’s Will Void Preventive Detention Cannot Be Based On Mere Apprehension of Bail: Delhi High Court Quashes PITNDPS Detention Order Probate Court Alone Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Decide Validity Of Will – Probate Petition Cannot Be Rejected Merely Because A Civil Suit Is Pending: Allahabad High Court PwD Candidates Cannot Be Denied Appointment After Selection; Authorities Must Accommodate Them In Suitable Posts: Supreme Court Directs SSC And CAG To Appoint Candidates With Disabilities When Registered Partition Deed Exists, Plea Of Prior Oral Partition Cannot Override It:  Madras High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Municipal Bodies Cannot Demand Character Verification Of Residents: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Surveillance Condition In Building Sanction State Cannot Exploit Contractual Workers For Perennial Work: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Pay Parity To PUNBUS Drivers And Conductors Police Inputs Cannot Create New Building Laws: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Security-Based Conditions Near Nabanna 'Raising A Child As Daughter Does Not Make Her An Adopted Child': Punjab & Haryana High Court Once Leave Under Section 80(2) CPC Is Granted, Prior Notice to Government Is Not Mandatory: Orissa High Court Restores Trial Court Decree State Cannot Use Article 226 To Evade Compliance With Court Orders: Gauhati High Court Dismisses Union’s Petition With Costs

Mandate Continues its Unbroken Run: High Court at Calcutta Upholds Extension of Arbitral Tribunal Mandate

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin

In a significant ruling concerning arbitration law, the Hon’ble Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya of the Calcutta High Court has extended the mandate of an arbitral tribunal in the case of Praxair India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Steel Authority of India Ltd. The decision, marked by the case number A.P. COM 41 of 2024, was delivered on 22nd February 2024.

The judgment revolved around the extension of the arbitral tribunal’s mandate under sections 29A(4) and (5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and the application of sections 5 and 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The Court had to determine whether the arbitral tribunal’s mandate had irrevocably terminated before the application for its extension was filed and whether the delay in filing the application was condonable.

The dispute arose from the extension of the tribunal’s mandate which was initially extended by mutual consent until 14.07.2023. The petitioner filed for a further extension on 14.07.2023, which after a series of transfers, was ultimately rejected as non-maintainable by the Commercial Court at Asansol on 09.01.2024. The present application was filed in the High Court immediately thereafter.

The Court, applying sections 5 and 14 of the Limitation Act, found the delay in filing the application condonable. Justice Bhattacharya observed, “The mandate was prevented from tripping and falling by continuation of the proceedings,” emphasizing the uninterrupted continuity of the mandate. The Court rejected the respondent’s contention that the mandate first terminated on 14.07.2023 and then on 09.01.2024, asserting that the mandate did not terminate at any stage in this timeframe.

Regarding the jurisdictional challenge, the Court held that it was competent to extend the mandate, citing its prior role in appointing an arbitrator under section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The Court stressed that section 29A is aimed at ensuring timely arbitration and should not be interpreted to cause unnecessary delays.

Decision: The application (AP COM 41 of 2024) was allowed, extending the mandate of the arbitral tribunal for three weeks from the date of the judgment. The court noted the readiness of the arbitral award as of 21.12.2023 and refused the prayer for stay.

Date of Decision: 22.02.2024

Praxair India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Steel Authority of India Ltd.

Latest Legal News

  • by sayum
    13 March 2026 9:42 AM
State Cannot Use Article 226 To Evade Compliance With Court Orders: Gauhati High Court Dismisses Union’s Petition With Costs
  • by sayum
    13 March 2026 9:41 AM
Once Leave Under Section 80(2) CPC Is Granted, Prior Notice to Government Is Not Mandatory: Orissa High Court Restores Trial Court Decree
  • by sayum
    13 March 2026 9:39 AM
'Raising A Child As Daughter Does Not Make Her An Adopted Child': Punjab & Haryana High Court
  • by sayum
    13 March 2026 9:38 AM
Police Inputs Cannot Create New Building Laws: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Security-Based Conditions Near Nabanna
  • by sayum
    13 March 2026 9:37 AM
State Cannot Exploit Contractual Workers For Perennial Work: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Pay Parity To PUNBUS Drivers And Conductors
  • by sayum
    13 March 2026 9:35 AM
Municipal Bodies Cannot Demand Character Verification Of Residents: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Surveillance Condition In Building Sanction