Rohan Builders (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Berger Paints India Ltd, 2024 INSC 686

  1. Home
  2. /
  3. Publications
  4. /
  5. Case Snippets
  6. /
  7. Rohan Builders (India)...

2024 INSC 686 – Rohan Builders (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. Berger Paints India Ltd.: In this judgment, the Supreme Court of India addressed whether an application for extending the time period for passing an arbitral award under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, can be filed after the expiry of the stipulated period. The Court held that such an application is indeed maintainable even after the initial twelve-month period or the extended six-month period has lapsed. Previously, the Calcutta High Court had ruled that extensions must be sought before the arbitral tribunal’s mandate expired. However, the Supreme Court emphasized that the power to extend time is vested in the court, which can be exercised for “sufficient cause.” This ruling underscores the need for flexibility in arbitration proceedings, highlighting that strict adherence to procedural timelines should not override the practical need for fair and effective dispute resolution. By permitting extensions post-expiry, the Court aims to balance the necessity for timely awards with the realities of arbitration, thereby aligning with the legislative intent to facilitate arbitration as an efficient and flexible process, free from overly rigid procedural constraints.

Tags:

Let us help you!

If you need any help, please feel free to contact us. We will get back to you within one business day. Alternatively, if you're in a hurry, you can call us now

+91 9052538538
info@karavadi.in

Recent Case Snippets

Pulicherla Nagaraju alias Nagaraja Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh; (2006) 11 SCC 444

The Court reaffirmed that the mere fact that a witness is related to the deceased should not be the sole reason for rejecting their testimony. Instead, the evidence should be assessed for its trustworthiness and credibility. If found reliable and probable, it can be considered, but if it raises suspicion, it should be rejected. Read more »

Fayaz Ahmad Sheikh Vs. Mushtaq Ahmad Khan, 2022 Scc Online J&K 565

The court observed that, a complaint under section 138 of NI Act, when an FIR of offences under section 420, 560 IPC was already filed with respect to circumstances of identical nature/ same transaction does not amount to forum shopping or double jeopardy. The offence under section 420 IPC is made during the issuance of... Read more » Read more »

Supreme Court Restores 3-Year Advocacy Experience Requirement for Judicial Service Entry

In All India Judges Association v. Union of India (2025), the Supreme Court, led by CJI BR Gavai, mandated a minimum of 3 years’ advocacy practice for candidates seeking entry-level judicial posts, restoring the pre-2002 requirement. The Court held that first-hand courtroom experience is crucial for judicial competence and cannot be replaced by academic knowledge... Read more » Read more »

Disclaimer

The Rules and Regulations set forth by the Bar Council of India under Advocates Act, 1961 prohibit Advocates or Law Firms from advertising or soliciting work through public domain communications. This website is intended solely to provide information. Karavadi & Associates (“K&A”) does not aim to advertise or solicit clients through this platform. K & A disclaim any responsibility for decisions made by readers/visitors based solely on the content of this website.

By clicking 'AGREE,' readers/visitors agree and acknowledge that the information provided herein (a) does not constitute advertising or solicitation, and (b) is intended solely for their understanding of K & A services. By continuing to use this site, you consent to the use of cookies on your device as outlined in our Cookie Policy.