Petitioner sought extension of arbitrator mandate under Arbitration Act. Court held absence of specific pleading for sufficient cause not fatal and delay by petitioner not a ground to refuse extension. Mandate extended by six months.
Mandate of the learned Arbitrator extended by six months from the date of the order.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~61
36843/2024
GOEL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Navin Kumar, Adv.
versus
DELHI METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD. .....Respondent Through: Mr. Arjun Natarajan and Ms. Kamana Pradhan, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
O R D E R (ORAL) % 22.08.2024
IA 36842/2024
1. Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.
2. Applications are disposed of.
O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 628/2024
3. This is a petition under Section 29A(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 19961 , for extension of the mandate of the arbitrator presently in seisin of the dispute between the parties.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the mandate of
1 “the 1996 Act” hereinafter Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Page 1 of 3 By:CHANDRASHEKHARANHARI SHANKAR Signing Date: 28.0 8.2024 15:41:00
Digitally Signed By: AJIT KUMAR O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 628/2024 Signing Da te:2 8.08.2024 15:42:48
the learned Arbitral Tribunal had expired in February 2024.
5. Accordingly, extension of the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal is sought.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent objects to the request on the ground that the petitioner has been protracting the cross-examination of the respondent’s witness which has gone on for more than a year. He submits that, under these circumstances, it is the petitioner who is responsible for the arbitral proceedings not concluding, and the petitioner cannot, therefore, maintain a petition for extension of the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal.
7. He also submits that there is no pleading, in the petition, of the existence of “sufficient cause” for extension of the arbitral mandate, within the meaning of Section 29A(5) of the1996 Act.
8. Insofar as the absence of any pleading of sufficient cause is concerned, there is no specific requirement in the 1996 Act of pleadings having to be made to that effect. The Court has to be satisfied that there is sufficient cause for extending the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal. This is not a case in which, even as per the respondent, the petitioner has been remiss in attending the proceedings.
9. Insofar as the time taken for cross-examination is concerned, there is no law which delimits the number of days over which crossexamination can be conducted. In the event that the learned Arbitral
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:CHANDRASHEKHARAN HARI SHANKAR Signing Date: 28.0 8.2024 15:41:00
Digitally Signed By: AJIT KUMAR O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 628/2024 Signing Da te:2 8.08.2024 15:42:48
Page 2 of 3
Tribunal has unnecessarily protracted the cross-examination, the remedy with the respondent lies elsewhere. That cannot be a ground to oppose the prayer for extension of the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal.
10. Indeed, once an Arbitral Tribunal is in seisin of the dispute between the parties, a prayer to extend the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal, so that the proceedings can come to an end, should not ordinarily be refused, save in rare cases. Otherwise, it is ordinarily incumbent on the court to extend the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal. This would also be in the interest of ensuring that a quietus is achieved to the dispute.
11. In view of the aforesaid, I am of the opinion that sufficient cause exists to extend the mandate of the learned Arbitrator. The mandate of the learned Arbitrator, therefore, stands extended by a period of six months from today. The mandate shall be treated as having continued till today.
12. The petition stands disposed of accordingly.
C.HARI SHANKAR, J
AUGUST 22, 2024 /aky
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed Page 3 of 3 By:CHANDRASHEKHARANHARI SHANKAR Signing Date: 28.0 8.2024 15:41:00
Digitally Signed By: AJIT KUMAR O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 628/2024 Signing Da te:2 8.08.2024 15:42:48
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to an extension of the arbitrator's mandate despite protracted proceedings by the petitioner.
Whether a specific pleading of 'sufficient cause' under Section 29A(5) is required when seeking an extension of the arbitrator's mandate.
Whether delays caused by the petitioner in cross-examination preclude an extension of the arbitral mandate.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
GOEL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY
DELHI METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD.
C. HARI SHANKAR
As recorded by the court registry
A miscellaneous application in an arbitration matter, commonly seeking extension of the arbitral tribunal's mandate under Section 29A.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
