TATA SONS PVT LTD (FORMERLY TATA SONS LTD) versus SIVA INDUSTRIES AND HOLDINGS LTD & ORS

Citation: [2023] 9 S.C.R. 1268 · Decided: 05-01-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1268
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 9 S.C.R.
[2023] 9 S.C.R. 1268 : 2023 INSC 13
1268
TATA SONS PVT LTD (FORMERLY TATA SONS LTD)
v.
SIVA INDUSTRIES AND HOLDINGS LTD & ORS
(Miscellaneous Application No 2680 of 2019)
In
(Arbitration Case (Civil) No. 38 of 2017)
JANUARY 05, 2023
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, CJI AND
PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, JJ.]
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: s. 29A (as amended)
– Time limit for arbitral award – Time limit of 12 months as provided
under the amended s. 29A (1) for passing an arbitral award –
Applicability of, to international commercial arbitrations – Held:
Timeline of twelve months for making an arbitral award is not
applicable to ‘international commercial arbitrations’ – In terms of
the amended provisions of s. 29A, arbitral tribunals in international
commercial arbitrations are only expected to make an endeavor to
complete the proceedings within twelve months from the date of
completion of pleadings and are not bound to abide by the time
limit prescribed for domestic arbitrations – As regards, prospective
or retrospective application of s. 29A, the 2019 Amendment Act does
not contain any provision equivalent to s. 26 of Act 3 of 2016
evincing a legislative intent making the application of the amended
provision prospective – Since s. 29A(1), as amended, is remedial in
nature, it should be applicable to all pending arbitral proceedings
as on the effective date-30 August 2019 – Thus, in the instant case,
the sole arbitrator to decide upon any further extension of time
beyond the originally stipulated – Sole arbitrator may issue
appropriate procedural directions for extension of time while
endeavoring an expeditious conclusion of the arbitration.
Procedural law: Nature of – Prospective or retrospective
application – Held: Procedural law establishes a mechanism for
determining rights and liabilities of a party and a machinery for
enforcing them – Generally, procedural laws are presumed to be
retrospective, unless there is a clear indication that such was not
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1269
the intention of the legislature, or the procedural law imposes new
obligations qua transactions already concluded or creates new rights
or liabilities.
Allowing the applications, the Court
HELD: 1.1 After the amendment, Section 29A(1) of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 stipulates that the award
“in matters other than international commercial arbitration” shall
be made by the arbitral tribunal within a period of twelve months
from the date of the completion of the pleadings under Section
23(4). The expression “in matters other than an international
commercial arbitration” makes it abundantly clear that the
timeline of twelve months which is stipulated in the substantive
part of Section 29A(1), as amended, does not apply to international
commercial arbitrations. This is further reaffirmed in the proviso
to Section 29A(1) which stipulates that the award in the matter of
an international commercial arbitration “may be made as
expeditiously as possible” and that an “endeavour may be made
to dispose of the matter within a period of 12 months” from the
date of the completion of pleadings. The expression “as
expeditiously as possible” coupled with the expression
“endeavour may be made” demonstrate that the intent of
Parliament is that the period of twelve months for making the
award is not mandatory in the case of an international commercial
arbitration. In an international commercial arbitration, the arbitral
tribunal is required to endeavour, that is, make an effort to render
the arbitral award within a period of twelve months or in a timely
manner. In a domestic arbitration, Section 29A(1) stipulates a
mandatory period of twelve months for the arbitrator to render
the arbitral award. In contrast, the substantive part of Section
29A(1) clarifies that the period of twelve months would not be
mandatory for an international commercial arbitration. Hence,
post amendment, the time limit of twelve months as prescribed
in Section 29A is applicable to only domestic arbitrations and the
twelve-month period is only directory in nature for an
international commercial arbitration. [Para 25][1279-C-G]
1.2 The Committee chaired by Justice B.N. Srikrishna
indicated that international arbitration institutions had been
TATA SONS PVT LTD (FORMERLY TATA SONS LTD) v. SIVA INDUSTRIES
AND HOLDINGS LTD
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1270
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 9 S.C.R.
critical of the setting up of timelines for 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.