Text

TATA Sons Pvt Ltd (Formerly TATA Sons Ltd) v. Siva Industries and Holdings Ltd & Others, (2023) 5 SCC 421

---

Introduction
Section 29A of the Arbitration Act is interpreted significantly in the case of TATA Sons (P) Ltd.
v. Siva Industries & Holdings Ltd., which was heard by the Supreme Court of India and reported
in 2023 (SC) 39. This is especially true when it comes to foreign commercial arbitrations.

Case Background
A share subscription agreement was signed in 2006 by TATA Sons, Siva Industries, and TATA
Tele Services Limited. In 2008, TATA Sons, TTSL, and NTT Docomo Inc. signed a new
contract, which resulted in disagreements between Docomo and TATA Sons. The arbitral
tribunal ordered TATA Sons to buy TTSL shares and reimburse Docomo in 2016. TATA Sons'
insistence that Siva Industries make proportional payments under a prior agreement led to more
disputes and the use of arbitration.

Facts of the Case

1.On February 24, 2006, the applicant, first respondent, and Tata Tele Services Ltd. (TTSL)
signed a share subscription agreement for the issue and distribution of TTSL shares to Siva
Industries.
2.TTSL later entered into a share subscription arrangement with the applicant, NTT Docomo.
3.An Inter se agreement was then signed by the respondents, TTSL, and the petitioner. The
agreement mandated that the respondents purchase TTSL shares on a pro proportional basis,
among other things.
4.After the applicant and Docomo had disagreements, Docomo filed a claim for arbitration
against the applicant under the London Council for International Arbitration's rules.
5.After a tribunal rendered its decision, the petitioner was required to pay Docomo and purchase
the TTSL shares that Docomo had put up.
6.The applicant then demanded that the first respondent pay for and repurchase its shares of
TTSL from Docomo in proportion under the terms of the Inter se agreement.
7.Both respondents received notice of arbitration from the applicant; but, in spite of this, the
respondents failed to choose an arbitrator. In order to establish an arbitral panel for an
international commercial arbitration, the applicant petitioned the court.
8.With the parties' approval, Justice S N Variava was chosen as the only arbitrator. The parties'
agreed-upon 12-month time and 6-month extension ran out.
9.The petitioner submitted a Miscellaneous Application to the Supreme Court on December 14,
2019.

Issues Involved
1.Will international commercial arbitrations be impacted by the 2019 amendments to Section
29A?
2.Does the 12-month period specified in Section 29A apply to International Commercial
Arbitration?
3.Would the revised Section 29A be effective going forward or backwards?

Arbitration Procedures:
The Supreme Court appointed the arbitrator in 2018 with the deadline of August 14, 2019, to
make a decision. Siva Industries was the target of insolvency proceedings at this time, which
resulted in a moratorium in July 2019. Following the lifting of the moratorium, TATA Sons
requested in December 2019 an extension of the arbitral tribunal's term. In the meanwhile, in
August 2019, the Arbitration Act's Section 29A was modified.

Important Legal Issues:
The interpretation of the modified Section 29A, and more especially whether the elimination of
the necessary time restriction for foreign commercial arbitrations applies retroactively or
prospectively, is the main legal question in this case.

Analysis of the Supreme Court:
The Supreme Court carefully examined the changes made by the 2019 amendment to Section
29A. The phrase "in matters other than international commercial arbitration" was introduced in
the modification to exempt international commercial arbitrations from the deadline for issuing
arbitral rulings. The Court came to the conclusion that the 12-month time restriction was a
directory for international business arbitrations and was only strictly relevant to domestic
arbitrations after the amendment. Although it is not a requirement, the tribunal in international
commercial arbitrations must make an effort to finish the procedures within a year. The Court
stressed that eliminating the deadline for international business arbitrations does not grant any
additional rights or obligations with regard to the amendment's applicability.As a result, any
ongoing arbitral processes as of the effective date, which is August 30, 2019, should be covered
by Section 29A(1).

Observation
1.The court said that international commercial arbitrations are no longer subject to the legally
mandated deadlines under the Amendment Act of 2019.
2.Only domestic arbitrations are governed by the modified Section 29A of the A&C Act, which
has removed foreign commercial arbitrations from the twelve-month timeframe.

3.By virtue of Section 26 of the Amendment Act of 2015, the provisions of Section 29A as
added by the Amendment Act of 2015 were prospective in character. Unless there is explicit
evidence that this was not the legislature's intention, procedural laws are often assumed to be
retroactive.
4.Section 26 of the Amendment Act of 2015, which clarifies the legislative meaning and makes
the applicability of the revised provision prospective, is not analogous to any provision in the
Amendment Act of 2019.

Conclusion
The Supreme Court's decision in TATA Sons (P) Ltd. v. Siva Industries & Holdings Ltd.
clarifies the meaning of the amended Section 29A of the Arbitration Act.As of the amendment's
effective date, the ruling guarantees that the rules that have been modified to loosen the deadline
for international commercial arbitrations will still be applicable to current arbitrations. This case
establishes a standard for how Section 29A should be interpreted and how it affects the deadlines
for foreign commercial arbitrations in India.According to the court, Section 29A established
stringent deadlines and additional duties for making an arbitral decision.

References
CASE ANALYSIS: TATA SONS (P) LTD. V. SIVA INDUSTRIES & HOLDINGS
LTD.https://viamediationcentre.org/readnews/MTQ4NQ==/Case-Analysis-TATA-Sons-P-Ltd-v-Siva-Industries-
Holdings-Ltd Last visited 25 April 2025
TATA Sons Pvt Ltd (Formerly TATA Sons Ltd) v. Siva Industries and Holdings Ltd &
Orshttps://www.drishtijudiciary.com/alternative-dispute-resolution/tATA-sons-pvt-ltd-formerly-tata-sons-ltd-v-siva-
industries-and-holdings-ltd-&-orsLast visited 25 April 2025

TATA SONS PRIVATE LIMITED VS SIVA INDUSTRIES AND HOLDING LIMITED: CASE
ANALYSIShttps://viamediationcentre.org/readnews/MTY1MA==/Tata-Sons-Private-Limited-Vs-Siva-Industries-
And-Holding-Limited-Case-AnalysisLast visited 25 April 2025

---

Detail Information

Title

TATA Sons Pvt Ltd (Formerly TATA Sons Ltd) v. Siva Industries and Holdings Ltd & Others, (2023) 5 SCC 421

Court

: supreme court., 2023

Lenght/Sections/Order/Rules

-

Language

English

Case Number/Citation

In the Civil Arbitration Case No

Matter(s)

-

Councels

-

Statement of Responsibility

Khushboo Bharti / Institute of Law,Jiwaji University,Gwalior

See Also

File Attachment

Comments

---

You must be logged in to post a comment