The Supreme Court, which will interpret the provisions of ACA 1996, Ss 14 and 15, has ruled that the term of office of an arbitrator will be terminated if he does not act immediately. The facts showed that the complainant had objected to the extension of the time limit in the arbitration proceedings, so that, without agreement, the Tribunal`s mandate would automatically be terminated. The Supreme Court held that the time limit provided for in the agreement was entirely within the framework of the 1996 ACA and that the arbitrator became a functus officio upon the expiry of the four-month period. The Supreme Court upscinded the appeal and overturned the decision of the Bombay HC. In interpreting the objective and objective of ACA in 1996, the Supreme Court agreed that the ACA was used in 1996 for early dispute resolution, but the terms agreed between the parties cannot be ignored. Failure to comply with the contractual provisions would thwart ACA`s intention in 1996, i.e. to settle disputes under the conditions set by the parties. The arbitration shall be conducted in accordance with the terms agreed between the parties under the contract. This judgment is a reminder of the factors that a court will consider when considering contractual deadlines in an arbitral and (ii) s12 context. The basic position on contractual eviction periods in the commercial context, especially where the consequences are explicit, is that these consequences apply.
This is the price paid by the parties in exchange for security. At the time of the conclusion of the contract, when it is often not known who could sue whom, it is a mutual acceptance of risks. If the seat of the arbitration is in England, the court may be empowered, in accordance with section 50 of the Arbitration Act 1996, to extend the time limit for the issue of an arbitral award. However, if the seat of the arbitration is not in England, similar powers may not be available under applicable law. Another important question is whether the deadline set is realistic. Parties may be interested in including short deadlines for dispute resolution at the contract design stage. However, in practice, it is not always easy to anticipate the nature and complexity of disputes that may arise in the future. As LCIA`s data on the average length of an arbitration proceeding show, it is unlikely that an arbitration proceeding can be concluded within less than six months with respect to a significant dispute. . .