Though the law sets a time limit for the arbitrator to pass an award, the period could be extended in one exceptional case, — when both parties consent to do so, the Supreme Court stated in its judgment in Electrical Manufacturing Co vs Power Grid Corporation. If there is no within the time frame. In this case, the time was not kept after disputes arose between Electrical Manufacturing and NTPC over payment for a contract to execute the RihandKanpur transmission line. The company approached NTPC and other authorities, but to no avail. So, it invoked the arbitration clause and appointed its nominee. However, NTPC failed to name its arbitrator. The company got the Institution of Engineers ( India) to appoint the other two arbitrators. The arbitration went ahead, despite protests by NTPC ( now Power Grid Corporation), and the award was passed in the company’s favour. When Electrical Manufacturing approached the Delhi High Court for execution, NTPC objected. While accepting the objection, the high court said the tribunal “ had acted in utter haste in rushing through the arbitration proceedings without affording proper and adequate to opposite parties.” Setting this aside, the Supreme Court said the tribunal was right in completing the proceedings as NTPC did not either participate or give consent for further time to complete proceedings.
Business Standard New Delhi,08 Auust 2016
Comments
Post a Comment