ELP Arbitration Weekly Update

Given is the analysis  of the decision of the Delhi High Court (“Court”) in Cinevistaas Ltd. v. Prasar Bharti. In this decision  the Court concluded that a Section 34 Application was maintainable and directed the Tribunal to take the amended claim petition on record.

During the pendency of the arbitration proceedings between Cinevistaas Ltd (“Cinevistaas”) and Prasar Bharti (“Prasar”), Cinevistaas filed an application before the Tribunal, seeking the leave of the Tribunal to amend its Statement of Claim (“Application”). Cinevistaas sought to introduce certain claims which were inadvertently missed out in its Statement of Claim but were previously provided for in the Notice of Arbitration. The Tribunal held that the additional claims were barred by limitation under the Limitation Act, 1963 (“Limitation Act”) and rejected the Application by an Order (“Order”).

Aggrieved by the Order, Cinevistaas filed an application under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Act”) (“Section 34 Application”) before the Court to set aside the Order. The issues which arose for consideration before the Court were (i) whether the Application ought to be allowed by the Tribunal; and (ii) whether the Order constituted an ‘interim award’ under section 2(1) (c) of the Act and was therefore amenable to challenge under section 34 of the Act.

In the interest of completing the arbitration proceedings in a time bound manner, the Court remitted the matter to Tribunal with a guideline to dispose the arbitration proceedings within 12 months from the date of first appearance before the Tribunal.