Table of Contents
Delhi High Court to Investigate Property Mutation Policy in Urban Villages
The Madras High Court recently ruled that where a party does not object to the fact that tribunal/court has not passed an arbitral award within 12 months, it is deemed to have consented to the extension of the tribunal’s mandate.[Ayyasamy v. A Shanmugavel]
Justice R Vijayakumar stated in his articulation that the purpose of Section 29A(4) has to do with the aim at achieving Quick Resolution without delays in Arbitration Process and as such cannot be made a tool by any of the parties who is aggrieved by an arbitral award in order to set it aside.
“If parties rely on that for raising issues relating to invalidity of award then Section 29-A and its sub sections which the parties would argue only after they learn that they lost a case, would be of no avail. The legislative intent of inserting Section 29-A of the Act is only for expeditious disposal of the arbitration proceedings and to re-open the entire proceedings solely because of a short term new argument being presented to an unsuccessful party to defend against an arbitration award,” the High Court remarked.
In the present case, the plaintiff and the defendant had been referred for arbitration by the Supreme Court in relation to a dispute.
