The Supreme Court has clarified that applications seeking extension of time under Section 29A of the Arbitration Act must be filed before the civil court of original jurisdiction, even where the arbitrator was appointed by the High Court under Section 11.
![[Applicability of the POSH Act to All Political Parties] Apex Court Directs Petitioner to Approach Election Commission](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/Posh-act.jpg?resize=447%2C367&ssl=1)
The Supreme Court on December 9, disposed of a PIL seeking to apply the POSH Act to political parties, directing the petitioner to approach the Election Commission first. Concerns over political parties’ compliance with ICC establishment were raised. The petition requested mandates for compliance and employee status for political party affiliates under the POSH Act.
When conflicting judgments of equal benches arise and a larger bench reference is pending, the judgment delivered earlier will prevail, as per a recent Allahabad High Court ruling. Upholding judicial discipline, the court emphasized the doctrine of stare decisis, ensuring consistency and predictability in legal decisions. The case was referred to a larger bench for decision.
On Monday (15th April), the Bombay High Court in Goa faced a jurisdictional challenge under the Arbitration Act, 1996. Justice Bharat P Deshpande referred the matter to a larger bench due to conflicting decisions within the court. The challenge revolves around the interpretation of Section 29A, addressing the procedural timeline for arbitration proceedings in India.
