Bombay High Court Grants Extension of Arbitrator’s Mandate, Rejects Claims of Bias and Delay.
03 January 2024
Arbitration Law >> Business & Commercial Law
This legal case of Ami Corporation v/s Mitraprem Cooperative Housing Society., concerns two petitions filed by Ami Corporation (CARBPL/29596/23 and CARBPL/29598/23) under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking an extension of the mandate of the sole Arbitrator. The disputes arose from two agreements—one a Construction Agreement for the redevelopment of a building, and the other a Lease Agreement for commercial premises. The Arbitrator was appointed on 04/09/2020, and the proceedings progressed with both parties filing claims and counterclaims.
However, the Respondent, a Co-Operative Housing Society, filed opposing petitions (CARBPL/35618/23 and CARBPL/35634/23) seeking termination of the Arbitrator’s mandate. The Society accused the Arbitrator of causing delays, being biased, and not acting impartially. Despite this, the court found no solid evidence of bias or impartiality and rejected the allegations. The delays in the proceedings were attributed to multiple factors, including the parties’ settlement discussions and illness of witnesses, but the court emphasized that the Arbitrator had acted within his authority to schedule dates by consulting both parties.
After reviewing the evidence and arguments, the court decided to grant the extension of the Arbitrator's mandate for an additional year, with the expectation that both references be concluded within this period. The petition seeking to terminate the Arbitrator's mandate was dismissed, and the request for a stay on the order was also denied.
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996