Supreme Court passes necessary directions on issues pertaining to limitation, service of notice etc. in light of COVID-19

The Supreme Court, on July 10, 2020, passed an order in a suo motu writ petition (Suo Moto Writ Petition (C) No. 3/2020) on issues pertaining to limitation and service of notice etc. (“Order”). By its Order, the Supreme Court has decided on the following issues Time limit for arbitral award The Supreme Court had, by its orders dated March 23, 2020 and May 6, 2020, had ordered that all periods of limitation prescribed under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Arbitration Act”), will be extended with effect from March 15, 2020 till further orders. Since Section 29A of the Arbitration Act does not prescribe a period of limitation but fixes a time for making an arbitral award, it was directed that the aforesaid orders shall also apply to extending the time limit in respect of passing an arbitral award under Section 29A of the Arbitration Act. Similarly, the Supreme Court also directed that the aforesaid orders shall also apply to extending the time limit prescribed under Section 23(4) of the Arbitration Act for completion of statement of claim and defence. Timeline for pre-institution mediation and settlement The Supreme Court directed that the time prescribed for completing the process of compulsory pre-litigation, mediation and settlement, under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, shall stand extended by 45 (forty five) days from the time when the lockdown is lifted. However, if the aforesaid period has expired, no further period shall be liable to be excluded. Service of all notices, summons and exchange of pleadings The Supreme Court has held that service of all notices/summons and exchange of pleadings/documents may be effected by e-mail, fax, commonly used instant messaging services, such as WhatsApp, Telegram, Signal etc. Extension of validity of negotiable instruments With respect to the prayer for extending the validity period of cheques, the Supreme Court held that the said period has been prescribed by the Reserve Bank of India under Section 35A of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949. In view of the aforesaid and given that the entire banking system functions on the basis of the prescribed period, the Supreme Court refused to interfere with the prescribed period and observed that the Reserve Bank of India may, in its discretion, alter such period. Please find a copy of the judgment here. This update has been contributed by Aastha (Partner) and Radhika Kothari (Associate).