Partly allowed

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

Rajasthan HC19 May 2023CMAP/74/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

On an application seeking extension of the arbitrator's mandate beyond the 12-month deadline, the Court rejected the request for one year due to alleged delay but extended the time for three months under Section 29A(4) of the Act. The application is disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Extension of mandate for three months to decide the dispute, effective from 19th May, 2023.

M/S Globus Spirits Limited, Vs Rajasthan State Ganganagar… — Arbitration | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Application No.74/2023

¶3

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

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Rajasthan State Ganganagar Sugar Mills Limited, Fourth Floor Nehru Sahakar Bhawan Bhawani Singh Road Jaipur Rajasthan

¶7

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

¶8

----Respondents

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Pratik Jain, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr.Vaibhav Jhankra, Adv. for Mr.Kapil Sharma, Adv.

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR GAUR

¶11

Order

¶12

19/05/2023

¶13

The instant arbitration application has 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.

¶14

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that this Court, vide order dated 24^th September, 2021, had appointed Hon’ble

¶15

[CMAP-74/2023]

¶16

(2 of 4)

¶17

Mr.Justice Atul Kumar Jain (Retd.) as a Sole Arbitrator in SB Arbitration Application No.35/2020 and other connected matters.

¶18

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.

¶19

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

¶20

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.

¶21

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.

¶22

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 award may be extended for the period of one year.

¶23

[CMAP-74/2023]

¶24

(3 of 4)

¶25

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.

¶26

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

¶27

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

¶28

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

¶29

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

¶30

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.

¶31

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.

¶32

This Court further finds the difficulty faced by the Arbitrator in deciding the dispute between the parties has occasioned on

¶33

[CMAP-74/2023]

¶34

(4 of 4)

¶35

account of certain amended Statement of Claims, said to be filed by the applicant.

¶36

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.

¶37

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 19^th May, 2023, to decide the dispute between the parties.

¶38

The present miscellaneous application stands disposed of with the aforesaid.

¶39

(ASHOK KUMAR GAUR), J

¶40

Himanshu Soni/59

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

Samarth Lifestyle Retailing Pvt. Ltd. through Authorized Signatory Having Its Registered Office Vs Inceptra Lifestyle Pvt. Ltd.

Samarth Lifestyle Retailing Pvt. Ltd. through Authorized Signatory Having Its Registered Office Vs Inceptra Retail India Pvt. Ltd.

M/S Inceptra Retail India Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Iconic Fashion Retailing Pvt. Ltd.

M/S Choudhary Enterprises Vs Union of India Thr Gen Manager and Anr.

Goyal Arts Partner Rakesh Goyal S/O Shree Mani Shankar Goyal Vs Anu Overseas India

M/S Shoolin Finance through Its Partner Shri Ritesh Dalmia, Vs Shriram Generics a Proprietorship Firm