There is a need to impose time limit on oral submissions in Arbitration cases – SC

There is a need to impose time limit on oral submissions in Arbitration cases – SC

In a recent judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had observed that there is a need to impose time limit on oral submissions in Arbitration cases so that Higher Courts be in a position to also devote sufficient time to the cases of the common man.

ABCAUS Case Law Citation:
4528 (2025) (04) abcaus.in SC

In the instant case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that in several appeals arising out of Sections 34 and 37 Arbitration proceedings, there is a tendency on the part of the senior members of the Bar to argue as if these proceedings were regular appeals under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’).

The Hon’ble Supreme Court noted that in the instant case, while making submissions, the counsel appearing for both the parties had gone into the minutest factual details despite that in view of the limited jurisdiction of the Courts in proceedings under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration Act, they must show restraint.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court further observed that there is a tendency on the part of the advocates to rely upon a large number of decisions, whether relevant or irrelevant, while arguing Section 34 petitions and Section 37 appeals as well as appeals arising therefrom. Multiple decisions are cited on the same proposition of law. This makes hearing time-consuming. As there are long oral arguments, the Courts permit written submissions to be filed which results in very long written submissions come on record. The Courts have to devote page after page for dealing with many submissions which ought not be made considering the limited jurisdiction under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court expressed that the high monetary stakes involved in the proceedings should not result in unnecessarily long oral submissions or bulky written submissions. Thses factors foes in the criticism about the arbitrations in India. Therefore, there is a need to impose time limit on oral submissions in such cases. 

The Hon’ble Supreme Court stated that it cannot be forgotten that the Apex Court and the High Courts have the appellate jurisdiction in civil and criminal cases. These Courts should be in a position to also devote sufficient time to the cases of the common man.

In view of the seriousness of the issue, the Hon’ble Supreme Court called for introspection for everyone.

Download Full Judgment Click Here >>

• Payment of imprest whether a transfer within the meaning of section 269ST
• CA Misconduct – Order quashed as judgment not passed by same members who heard arguments.
• Deceased homemaker can not be considered as dependant for award of compensation under MV Act – SC
• CIT notice u/s 263 quashed as AO rightly took DVO value of property as actual sale price
• Extension of timeline for implementation of Ship To GSTIN & Voluntary Closure of E-Way Bill functionalities