Earlier Decisions Are Binding Until Overturned or Clarified by a Larger Bench: Allahabad High Court Clarifies on Maintainability of Applications under Section 29A of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act
The Allahabad High Court has reaffirmed that applications seeking an extension of the arbitral tribunal’s mandate under Section 29A of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, are maintainable before the High Court if the arbitrator was appointed by the High Court under Section 11. This ruling emphasizes adherence to earlier decisions until clarified or overturned by a Larger Bench.
Facts and Issues:
Civil Misc. Arbitration Application No. 4 of 2024: M/s Geo Miller & Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. UP Jal Nigam and Others
M/s Geo Miller & Co. Pvt. Ltd. entered into a contract with U.P. Jal Nigam, resulting in disputes referred to arbitration.
The High Court appointed Mr. Justice R.D. Khare (Former Judge) as the sole arbitrator.
The mandate of the arbitrator expired on February 29, 2024, leading the petitioner to seek an extension under Section 29A.
Civil Misc. Arbitration Application No. 5 of 2024: GPT Infraprojects Limited v. Kanpur Development Authority
GPT Infraprojects Limited had disputes with Kanpur Development Authority, which were referred to arbitration.
The High Court appointed the arbitrator under Section 11.
The time limit for the arbitral award was expiring on March 7, 2024, prompting the petitioner to seek an extension under Section 29A.
Court’s Assessment:
Judicial Discipline and Precedent:
The doctrine of stare decisis ensures consistency and integrity in judicial decisions.
“When a bench of coequal strength is faced with conflicting judgments of other coequal benches, the judgment delivered earlier will continue to govern the field of law, till such time, the same is overturned or in case the question(s) of law, if referred to the larger bench is answered.” [Para 24]
Earlier decisions must be followed in case of conflicting judgments until a Larger Bench clarifies the matter. [Paras 8-24]
Conflicting Judgments Analysis:
Lucknow Agencies Case: Applications under Section 29A should be filed before the principal civil court when the arbitrator is not appointed under Section 11 by the High Court. [Para 25-27]
Indian Farmers Fertilizers Case: When an arbitrator is appointed by the High Court under Section 11, the application for extending the mandate under Section 29A is maintainable before the High Court. [Para 27-28]
A’Xykno Capital Services Case: Incorrectly held that all applications under Section 29A should be filed before the court defined under Section 2(1)(e), regardless of who appointed the arbitrator. [Para 30-32]
Binding Precedent:
“The judgment in Indian Farmers Fertilizers takes precedence over A’Xykno Capital Services as it was delivered earlier and is more aligned with judicial discipline.” [Para 33]
Decision: The applications by M/s Geo Miller & Co. Pvt. Ltd. and GPT Infraprojects Limited under Section 29A are maintainable before the High Court. The mandate of the arbitral tribunal is extended for 8 months from the date of the judgment.
Date of Decision: 17th May 2024
M/S Geo Miller & Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. UP Jal Nigam and Others; GPT Infraprojects Limited v. Kanpur Development Authority
