Supreme Court: Under Amended A&C Act, High Court Without Original Jurisdiction, Cannot Extend Timeframe To Pass Award
Supreme Court: Under Amended A&C Act, High Court Without Original Jurisdiction, Cannot Extend Timeframe To Pass Award
The matter relates to the Meghalaya High Court, which rejected the appellant’s application to stretch the scheduled period
The Supreme Court has held that a high court not having original civil jurisdiction does not possess the power to extend the time limit for passing the arbitral award under Section 29A of the Arbitration & Conciliation (A&C) Act, 1996.
The bench comprising Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan explained that as per Section 29A (4), such a power was vested within the principal civil court of original jurisdiction.
The amended 2015 A&C Act prescribes a maximum of 18 months, within which the arbitral tribunal must pass the award. Sub-section (4) of Section 29A provides power to the civil court to extend the time limit if the award is not passed within the timeframe.
The matter relates to the decision of the Meghalaya High Court, which rejected the appellant’s application to extend the time limit for passing the arbitral award. The court refused mentioning that it did not have the original civil jurisdiction. It added that if the high court did not have the original civil jurisdiction, the appropriate court was the principal civil court to consider the application seeking an extension of the time limit.
However, the apex court did not merit the appeal, declined to consider the petition against the high court's decision, and approved the ratio.
The bench stated, “The power under sub-Section (4) of Section 29A of the A&C Act vests on the court as defined in Section 2(1)(e). It is the principal civil court of original jurisdiction in a district, including a high court, provided the court has ordinary original civil jurisdiction. In this case, the high court lacks the ordinary original civil jurisdiction. Hence, there’s no merit in the Special Leave Petition. The same is, accordingly, dismissed.”
