Partly allowed

M/S Globus Spirits Limited v. Rajasthan State Ganganagar Sugar Mills Limited

Rajasthan HC12 May 2023CMAP/72/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed applications seeking a one-year extension for an arbitrator to pass an award, citing deliberate delay by the appellant. Instead, the Court extended the mandate for an additional three months under Sections 29A(4) and 24A(5) of the 1996 Act.

What did the court decide?

The prayer for a one-year extension was rejected; instead, the mandate for passing the award was extended for a further period of three months effective from 12th May 2023.

M/S Globus Spirits Limited Vs Rajasthan… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023/RJJP/010727]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 70/2023

¶4

M/s Globus Spirits Limited, A Public Limited Company Incorporated In India And Registered Under The Companies Act, 1956, Having Its Registered And Corporate Office At F-0, Ground Floor, The Mira Corporate Suites, Plot No. 1 And 2, Ishwar Nagar Mathura Road, New Delhi-110065 And Factory Situated At Village Shyampur, Tehsil - Behror, District -Alwar, Rajasthan Through Its Senior Sales Officer And Authorized Signatory Shri Ramesh Chand Bairwa.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Rajasthan State Ganganagar Sugar Mills Limited, Fourth Floor Nehru Sahakar Bhawan Bhawani Singh Road Jaipur Rajasthan through its General Manager.

¶8

Director-In-Charge, Rajasthan State Ganganagar Sugar Mills Limited, Fourth Floor, Nehru Sahakar Bhawan, Bhawani Singh Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 71/2023

----Petitioner

Versus

Rajasthan State Ganganagar Sugar Mills Limited, Fourth Floor Nehru Sahakar Bhawan Bhawani Singh Road Jaipur Rajasthan through its General Manager.

¶15

Director-In-Charge, Rajasthan State Ganganagar Sugar Mills Limited, Fourth Floor, Nehru Sahakar Bhawan, Bhawani Singh Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

[2023/RJJP/010727]

[CMAP-70/2023]

(2 of 6)

----Respondents

S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 72/2023

¶21

M/s Globus Spirits Limited, A Public Limited Company Incorporated In India And Registered Under The Companies Act 1956, Having Its Registered And Corporate Office At F-0, Ground Floor, The Mira Corporate Suites, Plot No. 1 And 2, Ishwar Nagar, Mathura Road, New Delhi- 110065 And Factory Situated At Village Shyampur, Tehsil - Behror, District -Alwar, Rajasthan Through Its Senior Sales Officer And Authorized Signatory Shri Ramesh Chand Bairwa.

¶22

----Petitioner

¶23

Versus

¶24

Rajasthan State Ganganagar Sugar Mills Limited, Fourth Floor Nehru Sahakar Bhawan Bhawani Singh Road Jaipur Rajasthan through its General Manager.

¶25

Director-In-Charge, Rajasthan State Ganganagar Sugar Mills Limited, Fourth Floor, Nehru Sahakar Bhawan, Bhawani Singh Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶26

----Respondents

¶27

S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Application No.73/2023

¶28

M/s Vintage Distillers Limited, A Public Limited Company Incorporated In India And Registered Under The Companies Act 1956, Having Its Registered Office At 710-B09, ITL, Twin Tower, Netaji Subhash Place, Pitampura, New Delhi – 110034 (then) 1006, 10^th Floor, KLJ Tower, Netaji Subhash Place, Pitampura, New Delhi – 110034 (now) and factory Situated At 117, Matasya Industrial Area, Alwar, Rajasthan, through its Senior Manager (Sales) and authorised signatory Shri. Anil Kumar Gupta, s/o Shri Rameshwar Prasad Gupta, residing at 4/4, Jawahar Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan

¶29

----Petitioner

¶30

Versus

¶31

Rajasthan State Ganganagar Sugar Mills Limited, Fourth Floor Nehru Sahakar Bhawan, Bhawani Singh Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan through its General Manager.

¶32

Director-In-Charge, Rajasthan State Ganganagar Sugar

(3 of 6)

[2023/RJJP/010727]

[CMAP-70/2023]

Mills Limited, Fourth Floor, Nehru Sahakar Bhawan, Bhawani Singh Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶37

----Respondents

¶38

For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Pratik Jain with Ms.Palak Saxena For Respondent(s) : Mr.Kapil Sharma Mr.CS Katara, DGM Legal, RSGSM – present in person

¶39

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR GAUR

¶40

Order

¶41

12/05/2023

¶42

These miscellaneous applications are decided by a common order, as the applications have been filed under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short“ the Act of 1996”) for extension of mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal.

¶43

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that this Court, vide order dated 24^th September, 2021, had appointed Hon’ble Mr.Justice Atul Kumar Jain (Retd.) as a Sole Arbitrator in SB Arbitration Application Nos.34/2020, 32/2020, 33/2020 & 42/2020.

¶44

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the order of appointment of the Arbitrator was received by him on 01^st October, 2021 and thereafter, Statement of Claims was filed by the applicant on 22^nd October, 2021 and the respondent took time to file Statement of Defense on multiple occasions and finally, the Statement of Defense was filed on 17^th February, 2022.

¶45

Learned counsel submitted that rejoinder was filed by the applicant on 26^th February, 2022.

[2023/RJJP/010727]

[CMAP-70/2023]

(4 of 6)

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that as per Section 29A(1) of the Act of 1996, the arbitral award by the Tribunal was required to be passed within a period of 12 months, however, in the present case, the period of 12 months has passed since completion of pleading and the case is at the stage of evidence.

¶50

Learned counsel submitted that a request was made by the applicant before the Arbitrator for extending the time, however, objection was raised by the respondents and as such, the Arbitrator passed an order on 28^th February, 2023 asking the applicant to seek extension of time from this Court by exercising its power under Section 29A of the Act of 1996.

¶51

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the claimant has already led its evidence and cross-examination of the respondent-witness has also taken place and as such, it is requested that mandate of the Arbitrator to pass arbitral awad may be extended for the period of one year.

¶52

Learned counsel submitted that there are other disputes between the same parties and as such, there are total 10 similar cases and as such, at least one year may be granted to learned Arbitrator to pass the award.

¶53

Learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the prayer, sought in the applications.

¶54

Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the applicant is deliberately delaying the arbitral proceedings and after recording of the evidence of the parties, the applicant is filing amended claim and as such, the entire purpose of the arbitration

[2023/RJJP/010727]

[CMAP-70/2023]

(5 of 6)

is frustrated by the applicant by filing such claims before the Arbitrator.

¶59

Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that in the present miscellaneous applications, if the evidence has already been recorded, there is no justification to extend the period of one year for passing the award.

¶60

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

¶61

This Court has also gone through the order dated 28^th February, 2023, passed by the Arbitrator and find that the Arbitrator is deciding the dispute between the parties and 10 similar cases are said to be pending and five cases are still at the stage of amended written Statement of Defense.

¶62

This Court finds that if the Arbitrator has been appointed by this Court vide order dated 24^th September, 2021, normally a time schedule is required to be followed for passing the award.

¶63

This Court further finds the difficulty faced by the Arbitrator in deciding the dispute between the parties has occasioned on account of certain amended Statement of Claims, said to be filed by the applicant.

¶64

Accordingly, this Court finds that the prayer, sought by the applicant to extend the time of one year for passing the award, cannot be accepted.

¶65

However, this Court deems it proper to exercise its power under Sections 29A(4) and 24A(5) of the Act of 1996 and extends the time for further period of three months, effective from 12^th May, 2023, to decide the dispute between the parties.

(6 of 6)

[2023/RJJP/010727]

[CMAP-70/2023]

The miscellaneous applications stand disposed of with the

¶70

aforesaid.

¶71

A copy of the order be separately placed in each connected

¶72

file.

¶73

(ASHOK KUMAR GAUR),J

¶74

Preeti Asopa /52-55

M/S Globus Spirits Limited v. Rajasthan State Ganganagar Sugar Mills Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Globus Spirits Limited v. Rajasthan State Ganganagar Sugar Mills Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Nirmala Poonglia and Ors. Vs J D a and Ors.

Smt Nirmala Poonglia and Ors. Vs J D a and Ors.

Himanshu Agnihotri Son of Shri S.N. Agnihotri Vs M/S Saraswati Press

M/S Vintage Distillers Limited Vs Rajasthan State Ganganagar Sugar Mills Limited

Patil Rail Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Vs Ministry of Railway

M/S L.V. Pharma Vs Medical Superintendent and Ex-Officio