Supreme Court: Arbitrator's Late Decision Doesn't Invalidate Case - Velusamy vs. Indhera

In a recent decision by the Supreme Court, the judges decided that even if an arbitration decision is late, it doesn't mean the case is over. The court can still give the arbitrator more time to finish their work. Let's break down what happened.

The Case Background

C. Velusamy and K Indhera had a disagreement over three agreements to sell. They went to arbitration after the High Court picked an arbitrator on April 19, 2022. The arbitration process started soon after, with the first meeting on May 28, 2022. By August 20, 2022, all the necessary documents were submitted, marking the start of the 12-month period for the decision.

Timeline Extensions and Delays

Initially, both parties agreed to give the arbitrator six more months, ending on February 20, 2024. However, because they were still trying to settle the matter, the decision was delayed. The arbitrator finally made a decision on May 11, 2024, well after the extra time ended.

Court Battles Begin

K Indhera argued that the decision was not valid because it was late. Meanwhile, C. Velusamy asked for more time for the arbitrator under a different rule. The High Court rejected Velusamy's request and agreed with Indhera, saying the decision was invalid.

Supreme Court's Take

The Supreme Court, led by Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, overturned the High Court's decision. They stressed that the court can give the arbitrator more time even after a late decision is made. The court's ability to do this isn't affected by the delay.

"The court can extend the time for the arbitrator even after a decision is made," said Justice Narasimha.

Why This Matters

This decision is important because it clarifies that late decisions don't automatically cancel out the arbitration process. Courts can still step in to make sure justice is served, keeping arbitration a reliable way to solve disputes.

What Happens Next?

The Supreme Court has sent the case back to the High Court to reconsider the request for more time. This ensures that the arbitration process can continue without issues.

In short, the Supreme Court's ruling highlights the need for flexibility in arbitration timelines, making sure that justice isn't thrown off track by technical delays.