13. On 10 June 2024, the learned Arbitrator took up the matter once again. On the said date, the learned Arbitrator noted the email dated 8 December 2022 of the DIAC, in which it was stated that the arbitral proceedings stood terminated. However, learned counsel who represented the DIAC admitted that the email had been issued under a misconception. The learned Arbitrator also noted the rival contentions of the petitioner and the respondent; the petitioner contending that, as the rejoinder in the case had yet to be filed, the time for passing the award by the learned Arbitrator as envisaged by Section 29A(1)6 read with Section 23(4)7 of the 1996 Act had yet to expire, and the respondent contending that, as nearly five years have passed since the grant of time to the petitioner to file the rejoinder, the proceedings had to be treated as having been terminated and could not be continued unless they were revived in appropriate proceedings under Section 29A of the 1996 Act. The learned Arbitrator, therefore, granted time to the petitioner to institute appropriate proceedings under Section 29A.
