Whether Court has jurisdiction to entertain a petition under Section 29A(4) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 after expiration of the period under Section 29A(1) and/or 29A(3) – ATC Telecom Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. – Delhi High Court
Hon’ble High Court held that:
(i) The purport of Section 29A of the A&C Act was clearly not to tie the hands of the parties or the court, and prevent extension of time even where warranted, simply because the petition under Section 29A(4) of the A&C Act came to be filed a few days after expiration of the deadline contemplated under Section 29A(1) or Section 29A(3) of the A&C Act.
(ii) Although the recommendation/s of the Law Commission or Parliamentary Standing Committees afford extrinsic guidance for interpretation of statutory provisions in certain situations, there are also limitations on such reliance.
(iii) The Court would take a suitable decision upon a petition under Section 29A(4) of the A&C Act being filed. Such a petition can be filed either before expiry of the period referred to under Section 29A(1) or Section 29A(3) of the A&C Act or even thereafter.
(iv) To deny extension of time in such a case, only because the petition under Section 29A(4) of the A&C Act came to be filed a few days after expiry of the period set out in Section 29A(3) of the A&C Act besides being in the teeth of the language of Section 29A(4) of the A&C Act, seriously undermines the efficacy of the arbitral process and also impinges on party autonomy.
(v) Disagreement with the judgment of Rohan Builders.
