Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1422 (HP)

Ashok Chauhan v. Engineer-In-Chief, HPPWD

2019-09-20

SURESHWAR THAKUR

body2019
JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. Mr. Naresh Kumar Gupta, was appointed, as, the Sole Arbitrator, under, orders recorded, by this Court, on, 10.1.2018, upon, Arb. Case No. 100 of 2016. Mr. Naresh Kumar Gupta, entered, upon, the reference, on, 21st February, 2018. Since, within the ambit, of, Section 29(A), of, the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), provisions whereof stand extracted hereinafter:- Section 29A. Time-limit for arbitral award.- (1) The award shall be made within a period of twelve months from the date the arbitral tribunal enters upon the reference. Explanation.-For the purpose of this sub-section, an arbitral tribunal shall be deemed to have entered upon the reference on the date on which the arbitrator or all the arbitrators, as the case may be, have received notice, in writing, of their appointment. (2) If the award is made within a period of six months from the date the arbitral tribunal enters upon the reference, the arbitral tribunal shall be entitled to receive such amount of additional fees as the parties may agree. (3) The parties may, by consent, extend the period specified in sub-section (1) for making award for a further period not exceeding six months. (4) If the award is not made within the period specified in sub-section (1) or the extended period specified under sub-section (3), the mandate of the arbitrators shall terminate unless the Court has, either prior to or after the expiry of the period so specified, extended the period: Provided that while extending the period under this sub-section, if the Court finds that the proceedings have been delayed for the reasons attributable to the arbitral tribunal, then, it may order reduction of fees of arbitrators by not exceeding five per cent, for each month of such delay. (5) The extension of period referred to in sub-section (4) may be on the application of any of the parties and may be granted only for sufficient cause and on such terms and conditions as may be imposed by the Court. (5) The extension of period referred to in sub-section (4) may be on the application of any of the parties and may be granted only for sufficient cause and on such terms and conditions as may be imposed by the Court. (6) While extending the period referred to in sub-section (4), it shall be open to the Court to substitute one or all of the arbitrators and if one or all of the arbitrators are substituted, the arbitral proceedings shall continue from the stage already reached and on the basis of the evidence and material already on record, and the arbitrators appointed under this section shall be deemed to have received the said evidence and material. (7) In the event of arbitrators being appointed under this section, the arbitral tribunal thus reconstituted shall be deemed to be in continuation of the previously appointed arbitral tribunal. (8) It shall be open to the Court to impose actual or exemplary costs upon any of the parties under this section. (9) An application filed under sub-section (5) shall be disposed of by the Court as expeditiously as possible and endeavour shall be made to dispose of the matter within a period of sixty days from the date of service of notice on the opposite party (i) the Arbitrator is enjoined to make an award, within 12 months, to be computed there from, and, when the afore period elapsed, on 20th February, 2019, (ii) yet, the afore non-rendition, of, the award hence by the sole Arbitrator rather within 12 months, commencing, from the afore date of his entering, upon, the reference, would not beget, the, ill-consequence, of, ipso facto, thereupon, his empowerment, to, render an award, becoming terminated, (iii) as, the afore period, is, extendable, under, sub-section (3) of Section 29-A of the Act, rather through, the consent, of, the participating litigants. Believing the submission, made at the bar, by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, that, even thereafter, the, contesting litigants, continued to participate, in, the proceedings, drawn, by the learned Arbitrator, (iv) thereupon, the afore participation, of, the contesting litigants, is, a deemed consent, under, subsection (3) of Section 29A of the Act, (v) hence, within, a, period of six months, from 21st February, 2019, the Sole Arbitrator was enjoined, to, render an award, upon, the reference made, to, him. However, he has not within the afore period, hence, made any award. Since, sub-section (4), of, Section 29A of the Act, also permits this Court to either before or after expiry of, the, extended period, grant, a, further period, to, the learned Arbitrator, for, enabling him, to make the award, upon, the reference made to him, (vi) and, also when, hence, the petitioner has moved this Court, within, a reasonable time, expiring, after, the, expiry, of, the extended period of about six months, hence, in the month of August, 2019, (vii) thereupon, the prayer made in the application, is, allowed, and, a further period, of, six months, is, granted to Mr. Naresh Kumar Gupta, the, sole Arbitrator, to, make an award, upon, the reference, as, made to him. Consequently, the instant petition stands disposed of. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.