CASE ANALYSIS ON
M/S. Lots Shipping Company Ltd V. Cochin Port Trust, 28 April 2020.
Facts of the case:
The facts of the case are of M/S. Lots Shipping Company Ltd V. Cochin Port Trust, 28 April 2020, the nominated arbitrator entered upon reference in May 2016. After the expiry of one year as mentioned in Section 29 A (1), both the parties requested for another 6 months but as the facts and evidence associated with the proceedings are intricate, one of the parties involved in the case approaches the Kerala High Court under Section 29 A (5) of Arbitration Petition filed for seeking an extension of time. But the registry noted defect in the petition filed considering the decision of M/s URC Construction Private Ltd. v. M/s BEML Ltd., Palakkad, decided on June 6th, 2013. According to the above-mentioned case, the Kerala High Court does not fall under the definition of "court" mentioned in Section 29 A (4) as it does not have the original jurisdiction over the matter to exercise its power. When the latter came up it was contended that it must be reconsidered as the impact of section 11 (6), section 14, and section 15 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 was not taken into consideration.
Issue of the case:
The issue of the case before the court was whether the expression "court" mentioned under section 29 A (4), does it require a separate understanding other than the significance contained in section 2 (1) (e) (i) of the act?
The decision of the court:
It was decided by the court that the term court mentioned in section 29 (4) must be given more purposive interpretation other than the significance contained in section 2 (1) (e) (i) of the act. The term court mentioned in section 29 (4) has interpreted as the Supreme Court in the case of international commercial arbitrations and as High Court when it comes to cases of domestic arbitrations. It was held in this case that parties will be at liberty to file an arbitration petition before the High Court under Section 29 A (5) of the Arbitration and conciliation act 1996 for extension of time for the continuance of arbitration proceedings. In this, it was also noted that the case filed was invoking Article 227 of the Indian constitution but to avoid the multiplicity of the proceedings, the court allowed the original petition. Hence it was concluded that the court allowed the original petition, by extending the period of arbitration till the date of passing of the arbitral award.
This Article Does Not Intend To Hurt The Sentiments Of Any Individual Community, Sect, Or Religion Etcetera. This Article Is Based Purely On The Authors Personal Views And Opinions In The Exercise Of The Fundamental Right Guaranteed Under Article 19(1)(A) And Other Related Laws Being Force In India, For The Time Being.