JUDGMENT : R.D. DHANUKA, J. 1. By this petition filed under Section 14 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short “the Arbitration Act”), the petitioner has prayed for quashing and setting aside the order dated 10th April 2015 passed by the learned arbitrator thereby allowing the application dated 3rd July 2014 filed by the respondent herein and rejecting the application for termination of the mandate of the arbitral tribunal under Section 25 (a) of the Arbitration Act and holding that the statement of claim dated 19th May 2014 filed by the petitioner would be given back to the petitioner (original claimant) when the said order was pronounced on the ground that the arbitral tribunal had no power to accept or reject the same. The learned arbitrator also directed that the respective pleadings in the application would also be returned along with the copies of the order to both the parties. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this petition are as under:- 2. The petitioner herein is the original claimant in the arbitration proceedings whereas the respondent herein is the original respondent. 3. The parties had entered into a Distributor Agreement on 7th March 2002 on the terms and conditions recorded therein. The parties thereafter executed two supplementary agreements dated 22nd March 2003 and 14th March 2004. The dispute arose between the parties. Sometime in the year 2006, the petitioner invoked the arbitration agreement. The dispute was referred to a Senior Counsel of this Court pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 12th October 2010. On 17th April 2006, the petitioner filed its statement of claim before the learned arbitrator appointed by this Court for an amount of Rs.75,74,277.14/- with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of termination till its realisation. On 8th September 2006, the respondent filed its counter claim for an amount of Rs.54,38,341.42/- with interest @ 18% p.a. in the said counter claim. 4. Learned arbitrator made an award in the said arbitration proceedings on 12th October 2010. The respondent herein challenged the said award by filing an arbitration petition (507 of 2008) in this Court. By consent of the parties, the said arbitration petition was allowed and the said impugned award dated 12th October 2010 came to be set aside. 4. Learned arbitrator made an award in the said arbitration proceedings on 12th October 2010. The respondent herein challenged the said award by filing an arbitration petition (507 of 2008) in this Court. By consent of the parties, the said arbitration petition was allowed and the said impugned award dated 12th October 2010 came to be set aside. This Court directed that the reference shall be heard afresh by the learned sole arbitrator, a senior counsel of this Court. 5. Learned arbitrator issued a notice on 23rd November 2010 by which a preliminary meeting was fixed on 12th April 2011. In the said meeting, the learned arbitrator issued a direction to file statement of claim on or before 18th January 2011 and to file written statement/reply and counter claim if any on or before 4th March 2011. The learned arbitrator issued further direction about filing of documents and affidavit of documents. In the said meeting, the learned arbitrator made it clear that on 12th April 2011, the advocates alone shall make an attempt to ascertain the compliance with the schedule mentioned in the minutes of meeting and to issue further direction as may be necessary. 6. On 19th May 2014, the petitioner filed fresh statement of claim. It is the case of the petitioner that the said statement of claim filed on 19th May 2014 was more or less identical to that of the statement of claim filed in the first round of arbitration. The petitioner through advocate's letter forwarded the said statement of claim to the learned arbitrator and also a copy to the learned advocate representing the respondent. On 22nd May 2014, the respondent through its advocate raised an objection for taking the said statement of claim on record. In view of the objection raised by the respondent through its advocate, the learned arbitrator vide his letter dated 3rd June 2014 fixed a meeting on 9th June 2014 for discussion on the arbitration proceedings. 7. On 1st July 2014, the respondent filed an application under Section 25(a) of the Arbitration Act inter-alia praying for termination of the arbitration proceedings on account of delay caused in filing of the statement of claim by the petitioner herein. 8. On 29th July 2014, the petitioner filed its reply and opposed the said application filed by the respondent under Section 25(a) of the Arbitration Act. 8. On 29th July 2014, the petitioner filed its reply and opposed the said application filed by the respondent under Section 25(a) of the Arbitration Act. It was the case of the petitioner in the said reply that the delay in filing the statement of claim was beyond the control of the then advocate of the petitioner and for various other reasons. It was contended that the said statement of claim filed on 19th May 2014 was identical to that of previous claim filed in first round of arbitration. The petitioner also contended that since the records were not at one place, there was some difficulty in filing the statement of claim within the time prescribed before the learned arbitrator. The respondent filed its rejoinder on 17th September 2014 and opposed the contention of the petitioner. It was contended by the respondent that the respondent was made to believe that the petitioner had abandoned the claim. 9. On 10th April 2015, the learned arbitrator passed an order on the said application under Section 25 (a) of the Arbitration Act and allowed the said application dated 3rd July 2014 filed by the respondent and terminated the arbitration proceedings. Learned arbitrator directed that the statement of claim dated 19th May 2014 would be given back to the petitioner when the said order was pronounced as the learned arbitrator had no power to accept or reject the same. The learned arbitrator also held that the respective pleadings in the application would also be returned along with the copies of the order to both the parties. This order of the learned arbitrator passed on 10th April 2015 is impugned by the petitioner under Section 14 of the Arbitration Act. The petitioner has prayed for quashing and setting aside the order dated 10th April 2015 and for dismissal of the application filed by the respondent under Section 25(a) of the Arbitration Act and for an order and direction of this Court. 10. Mr. Joshi, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner invited my attention to various correspondence annexed to the arbitration petition, the order passed by this Court on 12th October 2010, minutes of meeting of the learned arbitrator, application filed by the respondent under Section 25(a) of the Arbitration Act, pleadings filed by the parties in the said application and the impugned order passed by the learned arbitrator. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel that the learned arbitrator did not call for any meeting after 12th April 2011. The said meeting which was fixed on 23rd November 2010 for 12th April 2011 was not held. He submits that the statement of claim along with requisite documents were already filed by the petitioner before the learned sole arbitrator. He submits that the statement of claim filed on 19th May 2014 was identical to the statement of claim filed by the petitioner on 17th April 2006. He submits that the award dated 24th March 2008 was admittedly set aside by consent of the parties by an order dated 12th October 2010. By the said order dated 12th October 2010, this Court appointed a Senior Advocate of this Court as a sole arbitrator and directed that the reference shall be heard afresh by the learned arbitrator. 11. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was under an impression that the necessary steps would be taken as no further directions prejudicial to the petitioner were passed by the learned arbitrator. The respondent also did not file its counter claim before the learned arbitrator as directed in the said meeting dated 23rd November 2010. 12. Learned senior counsel invited my attention to the detailed affidavit-in-reply filed by the petitioner to the application filed by the respondent under Section 25 (a) of the Arbitration Act and would submit that the petitioner had made out a sufficient cause in terms of Section 25 (a) of the Arbitration Act and thus the learned arbitrator could not have terminated the proceedings. He submits that the powers of the learned arbitrator under Section 23 read with Section 25 of the Arbitration Act includes the power to grant extension of time to file pleadings if sufficient cause is made out. He submits that in any event, no prejudice was caused to the respondent. The respondent did not apply for termination of the arbitration proceedings between 12th April 2011 and 1st July 2014. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel that it was beyond the control of the petitioner as well as the then advocate and solicitor to file first statement of claim within the time prescribed before the learned arbitrator. There was no progress in the matter. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel that it was beyond the control of the petitioner as well as the then advocate and solicitor to file first statement of claim within the time prescribed before the learned arbitrator. There was no progress in the matter. He submits that the learned arbitrator also did not fix any meeting after 12th April 2011 till the respondent raised an objection for taking the statement of claim filed by the petitioner on record by its advocate's letter dated 22nd May 2014. 13. Mr. Joshi, learned senior counsel placed reliance on the judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of Arun Kathpalia Vs. J.M. Mukhi decided on 25th May 2009 in OMP No. 86 of 2009 and in particular paragraphs 3, 8 and 9 thereof. 14. Mr. Dave, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, on the other hand, invited my attention to the minutes of meeting dated 12th April 2011 and would submit that in the said meeting held by the learned arbitrator, the petitioner did not make any statement that since the statement of claim was already filed by the petitioner in the earlier round of the arbitration, the petitioner need not file any fresh statement of claim along with the documents before the learned arbitrator. He submits that on the contrary, the petitioner got direction issued from the learned arbitrator for filing fresh statement of claim along with the documents. He also invited my attention to the order passed by this Court thereby setting aside the arbitral award rendered by the learned arbitrator on 12th October 2010. 15. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that the petitioner admittedly did not file any application for extension of time to file fresh statement of claim along with the documents nor applied for condonation of delay in filing the pleadings and the documents, the learned arbitrator rightly did not entertain the said request made in the affidavit-in-reply to the said application under Section 25 of the Arbitration Act filed by the respondent. 16. Learned counsel for the respondent placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Wanbury Ltd. Vs. 16. Learned counsel for the respondent placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Wanbury Ltd. Vs. Candid Drug Distributors decided on 15th July 2015 in Arbitration Petition No. 1461 of 2014 and more particularly paragraphs 25, 28, 30, 34, 37, 41 and 46 in support of the submission that the petitioner not having applied for extension of time and not having shown sufficient cause for delay in filing the statement of claim, the learned arbitrator rightly terminated the proceedings under Section 25 of the Arbitration Act. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that though there was no meeting held by the learned arbitrator after 12th April 2011 till the application for termination of the mandate filed by the respondent, it did not prevent the petitioner to apply for extension of time and for condonation of delay in filing the statement of claim. He submits that only after the respondent filed an application for termination of the mandate of the proceedings under Section 25 of the Arbitration Act, the petitioner in affidavit-in-reply requested the learned arbitrator to grant extension of time and to condone the delay. 17. Learned counsel for the respondent also invited my attention to the findings recorded by the learned arbitrator in the order terminating the arbitration proceedings and would submit that this Court cannot interfere with such findings of facts recorded by the learned arbitrator. 18. Mr. Joshi, learned senior counsel for the petitioner in rejoinder submits that even under Section 25 of the Arbitration Act, merely because there was some delay on the part of the petitioner in filing the statement of claim as directed by the learned arbitrator, the proceedings are not terminated automatically and a specific order for termination of the proceedings is required to be passed by the learned arbitrator. He submits that the learned arbitrator before passing such drastic order of termination of the proceedings is required to hear the parties and has to take a reasonable view whether the extension of time for filing of the statement of claim or any other pleadings is required to be granted or not upon considering the fact whether the sufficient cause is shown by a defaulting party. He submits that there was no dispute that the petitioner has already filed fresh statement of claim before the learned arbitrator and the same was already on the record before the learned arbitrator. 19. Learned senior counsel invited my attention to the paragraph 6 of the affidavit-in-reply filed by the petitioner to the application filed by the respondent for termination of the arbitration proceedings and would submit that delay was satisfactorily explained and sufficient cause was shown by the petitioner in the said affidavit-in-reply. The petitioner also disputed the allegations of the respondent that mandate of the arbitration had already come to an end. 20. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that even if the respondent could not file counter claim before the learned arbitrator, the respondent could have independently filed statement of claim in respect of their alleged dues against the petitioner which was also not filed by the respondent till date. He submits that since there was no progress in the arbitration proceedings, no prejudice was caused to either party by not filing their respective pleadings. 21. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent also did not apply for termination of the proceedings for more than three years and thus the learned arbitrator ought to have considered this crucial aspect also while terminating the proceedings. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner distinguishes the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent on the ground that the respondent was also not vigilant in filing their pleadings and in making an application for termination of the proceedings by the learned arbitrator. 22. Learned senior counsel placed reliance on paragraphs 38 and 41 of the judgment of this Court in the case of Wanbury Ltd. Vs. Candid Drug Distributors (supra) and would submit that the power of granting extension of the arbitral tribunal is implicit in their power to determine the time to file pleadings and documents prescribed under section 23(1) of the Arbitration Act. He submits that the arbitral tribunal has power to grant extension of time if sufficient cause is made out by a party in not filing the pleadings and documents. REASONS AND CONCLUSIONS:- 23. There is no dispute that the petitioner herein had already filed statement of claim in the earlier round of arbitration proceedings which culminated into an arbitral award dated 12th October 2010. REASONS AND CONCLUSIONS:- 23. There is no dispute that the petitioner herein had already filed statement of claim in the earlier round of arbitration proceedings which culminated into an arbitral award dated 12th October 2010. The respondent herein had challenged the said arbitral award by filing an arbitration petition (507 of 2008) in this Court. By consent of the parties, the said arbitration petition is allowed and the said impugned award dated 12th October 2010 came to be set aside. By the said order, this Court directed that the reference shall be heard afresh by the learned sole arbitrator, a senior counsel of this Court. 24. Learned arbitrator thereafter issued a notice on 23rd November 2010 and fixed a preliminary meeting on 12th April 2011 and issued various directions to the parties to file pleadings on a particular date. In so far as filing statement of claim by the petitioner is concerned, the learned arbitrator directed to file statement of claim on or before 18th January 2011. A perusal of the minutes of the said meeting indicates that the learned arbitrator fixed the next meeting on 12th April 2011 and made it clear that the advocate alone shall make an attempt to ascertain the compliance with the schedule mentioned in the minutes of meeting dated 12th April 2011 and the learned arbitrator shall issue further direction as may be necessary. 25. It is not in dispute that on 12th April 2011, the learned arbitrator did not hold any meeting and even subsequently did not hold any meeting till the respondent herein filed an application under Section 25(a) of the Arbitration Act inter-alia praying for termination of the proceedings. It is not in dispute that the petitioner in the meanwhile on 19th May 2014 forwarded fresh statement of claim to the learned arbitrator with a copy thereof to the respondent as and by way of service thereof. It is not in dispute that though the respondent could have filed a separate claim for recovery of the alleged dues against the petitioner though no statement of claim was filed by the petitioner within the time prescribed. The respondent also did not seek any direction from the learned arbitrator to file their statement of claim in lieu of counter claim in absence of statement of claim filed by the petitioner. The respondent also did not seek any direction from the learned arbitrator to file their statement of claim in lieu of counter claim in absence of statement of claim filed by the petitioner. The respondent filed an application dated 1st July 2014 only after the petitioner had already tendered fresh statement of claim before the learned arbitrator. 26. The question that arises for consideration of this Court is whether the learned arbitrator has power to grant extension of time to file statement of claim along with documents and other pleadings after expiry of time stipulated in the preliminary meeting if sufficient cause is shown by a defaulting party and if it is shown that no prejudice of any nature whatsoever was caused to the other party. 27. There is no dispute that the petitioner herein did not file any separate application for condonation of delay or extension of time for filing statement of claim before filing the statement of claim before the learned arbitrator on 19th May 2014. A perusal of the reply filed by the petitioner on 29th July 2014 to the application dated 1st July 2014 filed by the respondent under Section 25(a) of the Arbitration Act indicates that it is pleaded by the petitioner that the petitioner could not file their statement of claim within the time as directed by the learned arbitrator in the meeting held on 23rd November 2010. However, the statement of claim has already been filed along with the letter dated 19th May 2014. It is also pleaded that there was no difference in the statement of claim of the petitioner which was filed in the earlier arbitration proceedings and what was filed on 19th May 2014. It is pleaded that the respondent had been fully aware the claim of the petitioner from the year 2008 and in fact in the earlier arbitration proceedings, the award was delivered in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent which came to be set aside. 28. In paragraph 6 of the said reply filed by the petitioner, it is pleaded that since the petitioner has now filed statement of claim before the learned arbitrator, Section 23(1) of the Arbitration Act for termination of the arbitration proceedings does not apply. 28. In paragraph 6 of the said reply filed by the petitioner, it is pleaded that since the petitioner has now filed statement of claim before the learned arbitrator, Section 23(1) of the Arbitration Act for termination of the arbitration proceedings does not apply. It is pleaded that the delay caused in filing the statement of claim was for the reasons beyond the control of the advocate representing the petitioner and the also the petitioner. It is pleaded that after the first arbitration proceedings were over and the award was received in favour of the petitioner, all the record of the petitioner was not at one place and therefore it took time for the petitioner to put together its record and it is only after the petitioner was able to put together its record that the statement of claim could be filed. It is pleaded that delay in filing the statement of claim should be condoned for the reasons that the delay was not deliberate. 29. It is not in dispute that in rejoinder filed by the respondent to the said affidavit-in-reply filed by the petitioner to the application filed by the respondent under Section 25(a) of the Arbitration Act, the respondent did not dispute that there was no difference in the statement of claim of the petitioner filed in the earlier arbitration proceedings as also in these arbitration proceedings on 19th May 2014. It is also not in dispute that the respondent herein also did not seek any liberty from the learned arbitrator to file any statement of claim in lieu of counter claim which was directed to be filed by the learned arbitrator within the time prescribed in the minutes of meeting dated 23rd November 2010. The respondent also did not apply for termination of proceedings under Section 25(a) till 1st July 2014. 30. This Court in the case of Wanbury Ltd. Vs. Candid Drug Distributors (supra) has held that the power of the arbitral tribunal for granting extension of time to file pleadings and documents prescribed under section 23(1) of the Arbitration Act is implicit in its power to determine the time to file such pleadings and documents. 30. This Court in the case of Wanbury Ltd. Vs. Candid Drug Distributors (supra) has held that the power of the arbitral tribunal for granting extension of time to file pleadings and documents prescribed under section 23(1) of the Arbitration Act is implicit in its power to determine the time to file such pleadings and documents. It is held by this Court that the arbitral tribunal dose not cease to have power to issue a procedural direction and to grant extension of time if the sufficient cause is made out by a party in not filing pleadings and documents. This Court has held that it is the duty of the Court to give effect to the policy on law i.e. to promote efficiency of arbitration. This Court adverted to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Mohan Singh and Ors. vs. International Airport Authority of India and Ors. reported in (1997) 9 SCC 132 and has construed the word 'shall' used in Section 32(2) as 'may' on the ground that if the word 'shall' is not construed as 'may,' the arbitral tribunal will have no power to pass an order for extension of time to file pleadings and documents even if sufficient cause is made out. It is held that merely because an application for filing of statement of claim is filed belatedly due to sufficient cause, it cannot be construed that continuation of proceedings became unnecessary or impossible. 31. This Court considered the judgment of Patna High Court in case of M/s. Senbo Engineering Ltd. vs. State of Bihar and Others reported in AIR 2004 Patna 33 and the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in case of N. Jayalaxmi vs. R. Veeraswamy, Sole Arbitrator, General Manager (Finance), Airports Authority of India (NAD) and Anr. reported in 2004 (1) Arb.LR 31 (AP) and accepted the views of the Patna High Court in case of M/s. Senbo Engineering Ltd. (supra) and Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of N. Jayalaxmi (supra). In the case of N. Jayalaxmi (supra), the Andhra Pradesh High Court had taken a view that if section 25(a) is read as mandatory, the same would defeat sections 19, 23 (1) and 32(2) of the Arbitration Act and such a recourse should be avoided. 32. In the case of N. Jayalaxmi (supra), the Andhra Pradesh High Court had taken a view that if section 25(a) is read as mandatory, the same would defeat sections 19, 23 (1) and 32(2) of the Arbitration Act and such a recourse should be avoided. 32. This Court accordingly held that the word 'shall' in section 25(a) and 32(2) has to be construed as 'may' and the arbitral tribunal has implicit power in those provisions to grant extension and to condone delay in filing pleadings and documents and to recall its order, which orders are in the nature of procedural orders. This Court in the said judgment permitted the claimant to file statement of claim along with documents before the learned arbitrator and dismissed the application filed under section 14 for a declaration that mandate of the arbitral tribunal was terminated. In my view, the said judgment of this Court would assist the case of the petitioner and not the case of the respondent. 33. In so far as the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent that the petitioner ought to have filed an application in writing for condonation of delay and for seeking extension of time before filing statement of claim before the learned arbitrator and since such application was not filed, the reasons recorded in the affidavit-in-reply to the application filed by the respondent could not be considered by the learned arbitrator for condonation of delay or for extension of time to file statement of claim is concerned, in my view, the argument of the respondent is hyper technical and is stated to be rejected. Request of the petitioner for extension of time and for condonation of delay was on record before the learned arbitrator which is material and not in which pleading it was made by the defaulting party. The statement of claim filed by the petitioner in the first round of the arbitration was already on record. 34. Be that as it may, the statement of claim filed along with the letter dated 19th May 2014 was also filed before the learned arbitrator and was on record. In the affidavit-in-reply, the petitioner had already recorded sufficient reason explaining the delay in filing statement of claim. There was no progress in the arbitration proceedings for last more than four years either at the end of the petitioner or at the end of the respondent. In the affidavit-in-reply, the petitioner had already recorded sufficient reason explaining the delay in filing statement of claim. There was no progress in the arbitration proceedings for last more than four years either at the end of the petitioner or at the end of the respondent. In my view, if there was any delay on the part of the petitioner in filing statement of claim, the respondent could have opposed the claim for interest, if any, made by the petitioner for delayed period. The order passed by the learned arbitrator refusing to condone the delay in these circumstances and thereby terminating the arbitration proceedings is harsh and unreasonable. Though the application was filed by the respondent for termination of proceedings on 1st July 2014, the learned arbitrator disposed off the said application on 10th April 2015. 35. A perusal of the order passed by the learned arbitrator indicates that the learned arbitrator has allowed the application filed by the respondent inter-alia praying for termination of the proceedings on the ground that the petitioner was negligent or had not acted bona-fide. There is no dispute that the statement of claim filed in the first round of arbitration on 19th May 2014 was identical. No prejudice thus was caused to the respondent if the similar statement of claim was filed on 19th May 2014. In my view, since there was no statement of claim also filed by the respondent and since the respondent also did not file an application for termination of the proceedings or for fixing an early date of hearing for passing an order for termination of the proceedings, the learned arbitrator ought to have rejected the application filed by the respondent under Section 25(a) of the Arbitration Act and ought to have condoned delay in filing the statement of claim and ought to have taken the statement of claim which was already filed on 19th May 2014 on record. 36. I therefore pass the following order:- (a) Arbitration Petition No.537 of 2016 is made absolute in terms of prayer clauses (b) and (c). (b) The learned arbitrator is directed to take the statement of claim dated 19th May 2014 filed by the petitioner on record. The respondents are also permitted to file written statement and counter claim within eight weeks from today. (b) The learned arbitrator is directed to take the statement of claim dated 19th May 2014 filed by the petitioner on record. The respondents are also permitted to file written statement and counter claim within eight weeks from today. It is made clear that both the parties would also be at liberty to rely upon the papers and proceedings filed by both the parties before the learned erstwhile arbitrator whose award is set aside by consent of the parties. No order as to costs. (c) On oral application of the learned counsel for the respondents, operation of this order is stayed for a period of six weeks from today.