Delay Beyond Prescribed Period U/S 34(3) Of Arbitration Act Cannot Be Condoned In View Of Inapplicability Of S.5 Of Limitation Act: Himachal Pradesh HC

The Himachal Pradesh High Court bench of Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua has held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (Limitation Act) does not apply to a petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act). Therefore, if the petition is not filed within the prescribed period as laid down under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration Act, the delay cannot be condoned. Brief Facts: The award was passed by the learned Arbitrator against the...

Arbitrator's Mandate Can Be Extended If Non-Completion Of Proceedings In 12 Months Is Due To Delays Not Attributable To Petitioner: Himachal Pradesh HC

The Himachal Pradesh High Court bench of Justice Ranjan Sharma has held that the mandate of the Arbitrator can be extended under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) if the arbitral proceedings are not completed within 12 months due to reasons not attributable to the petitioner, as failing to do so would cause grave prejudice to the petitioner. Brief Facts: Pursuant to Notification under Section 3(A) of the National Highways Act, 1956, the...

Penalty Provision U/S 16(7) HP VAT Act Cannot Be Invoked Without First Ascertaining Applicability Of S.16(4): Himachal Pradesh High Court

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that the penalty provision couched in Section 16(7) of the HP Value Added Tax Act, 2005 cannot be invoked until the statutory authority is satisfied regarding the applicability of Section 16(4) of the Act.Section 16(4) requires a registered dealer to pay the full amount of tax due from him into a Government Treasury before it furnishes the return. Failure to do so attracts a penalty under Section 16(7).A division bench of Justices Tarlok Singh Chauhan and...

Application For Extension Of Time Cannot Be Dismissed Due To Mentioning S.151 Of CPC Instead Of S. 29A Of Arbitration Act: Himachal Pradesh HC

The Himachal Pradesh High Court bench of Justice Rakesh Kainthla has held that it is well-settled law that mere mentioning of an incorrect provision is not fatal to the application if the power to pass such an order is available with the court. Brief Facts: The applicant/petitioner has filed an application under Section 151 of CPC for extension of time to comply with the order dated 30.10.2023 passed in arbitration case No. 799 of 2023. The applicant/petitioner filed a...

Twin Conditions U/S 127 Of Income Tax Act For Transferring Assessee's Case From One Officer To Another Are Mandatory: Himachal Pradesh HC

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has elucidated the mandatory twin conditions for transfer of an assessee's case under Section 127 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, from one Assessing Officer to another. Section 127 stipulates that the Commissioner may, after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter and after recording his reasons for doing so, transfer any case from Assessing Officer subordinate to him to any other Assessing Officer also subordinate to him. ...

High Court Which Appointed Arbitrator U/S 11(6) Of Arbitration Act Cannot Be Classified As “Court” U/S 42: Himachal Pradesh HC

The Himachal High Court bench of Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua has held that the High Court which exercises original civil jurisdiction cannot be classified as 'Court' for the purpose of Section 42 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act when it merely appointed arbitrators under Section 11(6) of the Act. Section 42 of the Act will not be attracted where High Court having original civil jurisdiction has only appointed the arbitrator and has not undertaken any other exercise. Brief Facts...

Award Passed On Consent Cannot Be Held To Be Patently Illegal Or Contrary To Public Policy: Himachal Pradesh HC

The Himachal Pradesh High Court bench of Justices Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Satyen Vaidya held that the award being primarily based on consent cannot also be held to be patently illegal or in conflict with the public policy of India. Brief Facts The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant under Section 37(1)(c) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short the “Act”), assailing the order passed by the learned Single Judge on 06.07.2023 in Arbitration Case No.69...

Court Not Having Jurisdiction To Entertain Application U/S 34 Cannot Go Into Merits Of Award: Himachal Pradesh High Court

The Himachal Pradesh High Court bench of Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua has held that once the court comes to the conclusion that it didn't have jurisdiction to entertain the application under section 34 of the Arbitration Act, it cannot go into the merits of the case. This appeal under section 37 of the Arbitration Act arose out of an order passed by the District Judge by which objections preferred under section 34 of the Arbitration Act against the award were rejected. The district...

Award Suffers From Patent Illegality When Adjudication Is Done Without Giving Any Reasons: Himachal Pradesh High Court

The Himachal Pradesh High Court bench of Justice Satyen Vaidya, while a Section 34 petition, has held that when an award has been found to be rendered without giving any reasoning regarding the adjudication of the disputes, the said award suffers from patent illegality apparent on the face of the award, and liable to be set aside. Facts: The petitioner was awarded a contract to carry out certain construction activities on Chilladhar-Bihar road and Jibhi-Bahu road by Respondent No. 2...

Petition Filed After Expiry Of Limitation Period U/S 34(3) Of Arbitration Act Cannot Be Entertained Unless Sufficient Cause Is Shown: Himachal Pradesh HC

The Himachal Pradesh High Court bench of Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua has held that petition under section 34 of the Arbitration Act cannot be entertained which is filed beyond the prescribed period of 3 months under section 34(3) of the Act in the absence of sufficient cause being shown. Brief Facts Award was passed on 06.11.2023 in favour of the non-applicant/respondent by the learned Sole Arbitrator. The State of Himachal Pradesh, feeling aggrieved against the aforesaid award, has...

Himachal Pradesh High Court Reiterates Limited Scope Of Court Intervention U/S 34 & 37 Of Arbitration & Conciliation Act

The Himachal Pradesh High Court bench of Justice Virender Singh has reiterated that the scope of interference with arbitral awards under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, is narrow and not akin to appellate jurisdiction. Courts may only interfere if the award exhibits patent illegality or arbitrariness that goes to the root of the matter.Brief Facts:The Government of India, by a notification under Section 3(A) of the National Highways Act, 1956, acquired land in...

While Hearing Appeal U/S 37 Of Arbitration Act, Court Must Confine Itself To Grounds U/S 34 Of Arbitration Act: Himachal Pradesh HC

The Himachal Pradesh High Court bench of Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua affirmed that supervisory role of Courts is very restricted in dealing with appeals under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act. Scope of interference in a petition under Section 34 of the Act is very narrow. Jurisdiction under Section 37 of the Act is narrower.Therefore, Courts must be very conservative while dealing with arbitral awards and confine themselves to the grounds strictly available under Section 34 of the Act.Brief...