LALIT DUG S/O SHRI KRISHAN LAL DUG, V. UNION OF INDIA

CMAP/64/2022

AI Insights

The case involves an application for an extension of time for arbitration proceedings under the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996. Initially, Justice S.N. Bhargava (Retired) was appointed as the arbitrator on 08.09.2017. Due to various delays, including the COVID-19 pandemic, the proceedings were not concluded within the expected timeframe. The applicant sought an extension of time and the substitution of the arbitrator due to health concerns. The respondents opposed the application, citing restrictions under Section 29A of the Act, which limits extensions to a maximum of six months beyond the initial 12-month period unless the court extends it further. The court considered the impact of the pandemic and the health of the arbitrator before deciding to extend the time and substitute the arbitrator.

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 725683 (HC-RAJASTHAN)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 29-09-2022
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Civil Revision Petition No.1345 and 1934 of 2022
• Laws Referred To: Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: DIVYESH MAHESHWARI
• Assessee Lawyers: RAJVEER SHARMA
• Keywords: Arbitration; Covid-19 impact; Extension of time; Substitution of Arbitrator
• Section: 29A(4); 29A(6)

Judgement Text

"HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 64/2022 In S.B. Civil Misc. Arbitration Application No.66/2016 Lalit Dug S/o Shri Krishan Lal Dug, Aged About 60 Years, Resident Of Gurudwara Road, Kota Junction, Kota (Raj.) Proprietor M/s Bright Enterprises, 22-C, Shopping Center, Kota, Rajasthan. ----Applicant Versus 1. Union Of India, Through Its General Manager, West Central Railway, Jabalpur (M.P.). 2. Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction), West Central Railway, Bhopal (M.P.). 3. Divisional Electrical Engineer, (Construction), West Central Railway, Kota (Raj.). ----Respondents For Applicant(s) : Mr. Rajveer Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Divyesh Maheshwari HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI Order RESERVED ON :: 21/09/2022 PRONOUNCED ON :: 29/09/2022 1. The matter comes up on an application filed for extension of time under Section 29A(4) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996. 2. It is contended in the application that Justice S.N. Bhargava (Retired) was appointed as an Arbitrator on 08.09.2017. The proceeding could not be concluded, hence, the application for extension of time was filed and vide order dated 20.09.2019, the application was allowed and the period was extended for six (2 of 4) [CMAP-64/2022] months. Thereafter, again an application was filed for extension of time and was allowed by the Court on 03.03.2021 and the time was extended for a further period of six months. It is contended that thereafter, due to Covid, the proceeding could not continue and a prayer is also made that the time be further extended. 3. It is contended by the counsel for the applicant that though he does not have a specific prayer for substituting the Arbitrator, but as Justice S.N. Bhargava (Retired) is not keeping well and the Arbitrator may be substituted by extending the time and he is ready to bear the additional costs, which has to be incurred for appointment of a fresh Arbitrator. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents has vehemently opposed the miscellaneous application. It is contended that initially, as per Section 28 of the Arbitration Act of 1940, there was a power to the Court to enlarge the time for making award and the time could be extended from time to time, however, after the amendment and after coming into force of Section 29A of the Act of 1996, there are restrictions on extending the time. It is argued that in all the cases, award has to be passed within the period of 12 months and if it is not passed within the aforesaid period, the parties may by consent extend the period by a further period not exceeding six months and if the award is not made within 12 months and within the extended period, the mandate of the Arbitrator shall terminate unless the Court extends the period. Counsel for the respondents has placed reliance on the decision of the Bombay High Court in Civil Revision Petition No.1345 and 1934 of 2022 decided vide order dated 08.04.2022. 5. I have considered the contentions. (3 of 4) [CMAP-64/2022] 6. The application for extension of time was allowed by the High Court on 03.03.2021. It is important to note that due to Covid, the Apex Court had passed a general restraining order and the applicability of the provisions of the Limitation Act was kept in abeyance and this continued from March, 2020 to 28th February, 2022, thus during the period when the time was extended by the High Court, it was not possible for the Arbitrator, who is a Retired High Court Judge to continue with the proceedings. In order to take necessary precaution, the proceedings were not continued. A party cannot be made to suffer because the proceedings could not take place since there was Covid and the Arbitrator thought it proper due to the risk involved not to hold arbitration proceedings. Whether the term can be extended again and again under Section 29A of the Act of 1996 is a question, which this Court is not inclined to adjudicate in the present dispute as the term of the Arbitrator was already extended by the High Court on 03.03.2021 and during the extended time, there was Covid Pandemic due to which Arbitrator could not conduct proceedings. 7. It is thus, a fit case where the time needs to be extended by the Court, however, taking note of the fact that the Arbitrator was appointed way back on 08.09.2017 and till date, he has not been able to pass an award, this Court deems it proper to invoke the provisions of Section 29A(6) of the Act of 1996 and substitute the Arbitrator. This Court, therefore, allows this miscellaneous application and extends the period by six months, further the Arbitrator is substituted and in place of Justice S.N. Bhargava (Retired), Justice Alok Sharma (Retired), K-39, Income Tax Colony, Tonk Road, Jaipur, is substituted as an Arbitrator. The outgoing Arbitrator shall handover the file to the parties for (4 of 4) [CMAP-64/2022] placing the same before the substituted Arbitrator. The substituted Arbitrator shall proceed from the stage where the proceedings are pending before Justice S.N. Bhargava (Retired). 8. Registry is directed to intimate Justice Alok Sharma (Retired) and obtain his formal consent. (PANKAJ BHANDARI),J SUNIL SOLANKI/PS "