Page Reader AI | Supreme Court Flags Long Submissions In S.34/37 Arbitration Act Proceedings, Says Timelimit Needs To Be Imposed

Supreme Court Flags Long Submissions In S.34/37 Arbitration Act Proceedings, Says Timelimit Needs To Be Imposed

The Supreme Court of India criticized excessively long submissions in arbitration proceedings under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, advocating for time limits to improve efficiency.

AI Summary available — skim the key points instantly. Show AI Generated Summary

Show AI Generated Summary

On April 21, the Supreme Court expressed its displeasure over the prolonged arguments and submissions made by members of the Bar in arbitration proceedings under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

The Court noted that excessively long oral submissions force judges to invest significant time in reviewing extended arguments, often supported by a large volume of case law, regardless of their relevance. This practice, particularly in high-stakes matters, leads to unnecessarily lengthy judgments and ultimately undermines the efficiency and growth of arbitration as an effective dispute resolution mechanism in India.

“We have noticed that there is a tendency on the part of senior members of the bar to argue as if these proceedings were regular appeals under Section 96 of CPC. In this case, while making submissions, we learned counsels for both the parties have gone into minute and factual details…”, the bench comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and Pankaj Mithal said.

“The high monetary stakes involved in the proceedings should not result in unnecessary long oral submissions or concurrent submissions. All these results in criticism about arbitrations in India. There is a need to impose a time limit for oral submissions in such cases:.”, the court added.

The Court highlighted the instances where multiple judgments are cited on the same legal point, making hearings unnecessarily lengthy.

"Multiple decisions are cited on the same proposition of law that makes hearing time-consuming..", the court said.

The Court reminded the members of the bar that Sections 34 and 37 petitions have a narrow scope, as they are not appellate proceedings but limited judicial reviews (only on grounds like fraud, bias, or patent illegality).

"As members of the bar are aware of the limited tradition of the courts in position under Sections 34 and 37, they must show restraint. Similarly, we observed a tendency on the part of members of the bar to rely upon large number of decisions, whether relevant or irrelevant, while arguing Section 34 petitions and Section 37 appeals, as well as appeals arising therefrom...The courts have to devote page after page for dealing with many submissions.They shall not be made considering the limited tradition under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. This results in very lengthy judgments.", the court observed.

"We cannot forget that this court and the high courts have a period of jurisdiction in civil and criminal cases. This court should be in position to also devote sufficient time to the cases of common man. What we express is a matter of serious concern and introspection for everyone.", the court added.

Previusly also, the Supreme Court has expressed concerns about the bulky pleadings in arbitration proceedings,.

Case Title: LARSEN AND TOUBRO LTD. VERSUS PURI CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. & ORS.