The Kerala High Court recently held that applications for extension of time for passing arbitral awards can be considered by the Court even after the award has been passed and the Court can retrospectively extend such time, thereby, making the award valid and enforceable [RKEC Projects Limited v. The Cochin Port Trust].Single-judge Justice Anu Sivaraman (now a judge of the Karnataka High Court) went through Sections 29A(3) and (4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and concluded that there can be an application for extension either before or after the time provided for termination of the proceedings has elapsed.Such an application can be moved before the High Court and it is only if the Court is convinced that there is a genuine reason to extend the time that it can do so, Justice Sivaraman clarified in her order.Pertinently, it was held that if an application is made for extension of time either before or after the expiry of the mandate, then the 2nd proviso to Section 29A(4) of the Act provides that the mandate of the arbitrator shall continue until the application is disposed of."Therefore, it is clear that the termination of the mandate of the Arbitrator under Section 32 of the Act is not an absolute termination so as to denude this Court of any further power to consider any application. The said termination can only be read to be subject to the powers of extension of the mandate as provided under Section 29A(3) and (4) of the Act," the order stated.The order was passed on a case dealing with an arbitral award which was passed after the mandate of the arbitral tribunal was terminated.One of the parties to the arbitration, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd (2nd respondent), paid the amount that was due by the respondents.However, the first respondent, Cochin Port Trust, moved a commercial court arguing that since the award was passed after the time limit lapsed, it would not be enforceable.This prompted the petitioner in this case, RKEC Projects Ltd. to move the High Court contending that an application for extension of time can be considered by the Court even at this point.However, Cochin Port Trust argued that extension of time should have been sought before the award was passed.It was submitted that after the mandate of the arbitrator has ceased, the arbitrator or the arbitral tribunal could not have passed an award without the time provided having been extended as specifically provided under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.The Court, after going through the judgments cited by both sides and the provisions of the Act, concluded that that it can consider the application for extension of time even after the award was passed as in this case.Since the arbitration in this case was interrupted by the pandemic, the Court deemed it fit to extend the time for passing the award.RKEC Projects Ltd. was represented by Senior Advocate T Krishnanunni and advocates Jaykar KS, VS Robin, G Balu, Ramya Ramachandran, and KG Jayaprakash Narayanan.Cochin Port Trust was represented by advocates M Gopikrishnan Nambiar, K John Mathai, Jonson Manavalan, Kuryan Thomas, and Paulose C Abraham.Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. was represented by advocates Vizzy George Kokkat, Nithin George, and Rithu Jose.
TAGS: Kerala High Court Arbitration Extension of Time Arbitral Awards Justice Anu Sivaraman Arbitration and Conciliation Act
