Delhi High Court - Orders
Ram Chander Aggarwal vs Ram Kishan Aggarwal & Anr on 22 October, 2021
Author: Vibhu Bakhru
Bench: Vibhu Bakhru
$~11
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 12/2020
RAM CHANDER AGGARWAL ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Paramjeet Singh, Adv.
versus
RAM KISHAN AGGARWAL & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Sunil Mittal, Sr. Adv. with Mr.
Dhruv Gover, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU
ORDER
% 22.10.2021
1. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereafter "A&C Act"), inter alia, praying as under:
"In the facts & circumstances, it is, therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court would be graciously pleased to extend the time of Arbitral Proceedings pending before Sh. B. L. GARG:
(ADDL. DISTT. & SESSION JUDGE: RETD.): A-9, GANPATI APARTMENT: CIVIL LINES: DELHI- 54 titled as" RAMCHANDER AGGARWAL. Vs. RAM KISHAN AGGARWAL & ANOR., for a period 6 months i.e. by 6.7.2020, so as to enable Ld. Arbitrator to pass an award in accordance with law, in the interest of justice."
2. In the present case, the Arbitral Tribunal was appointed on 07.07.2018 to adjudicate the disputes that had arisen in respect of Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DUSHYANT RAWAL Agreement dated 01.04.2014. It is stated that the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal was extended by a further period of six months by mutual consent and thus, it expired on 06.01.2020. It is stated that the arbitral proceedings are at the stage of petitioner's evidence (claimant's witnesses' evidence) as the progress has been slow due to disruption caused by outbreak of COVID-
19.3. Mr. Mittal, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent opposes the present petition on two grounds. First, he submits that this Court does not have the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the present petition as the value of the claims is below ₹2 crore. Second, he submits that the appointment of the Arbitral Tribunal is not in accordance with the provisions of the A&C Act and the applicable laws as the concurrence of the respondent was not sought for appointment of the Arbitrator. He states that extending the time for the Arbitral Tribunal to make the award would be construed as the court rejecting the respondent's challenge to the Learned Arbitrator.
4. The scope of the present petition is limited to examining whether the Arbitral Tribunal is proceeding with due dispatch. It is probable that the arbitral proceedings have not been concluded due to disruption caused by the pandemic.
5. In view of the above, this Court considers it apposite to allow the present petition.
6. The contention that this Court does not have the jurisdiction to entertain the present petition is unpersuasive. Section 29A of the A&C Act also empowers the Court to substitute the Arbitrator and the said power can be exercised only by the High Court and in case of international commercial Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DUSHYANT RAWAL arbitration, by the Supreme Court.
7. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed and the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal is extended for a further period of six months that is, till 21.04.2022. The period from 06.01.2020 till date is also regularized.
8. It is also clarified that all rights and contentions of the parties, including the respondent's right to challenge the Arbitrator are reserved.
VIBHU BAKHRU, J OCTOBER 22, 2021 dr Click here to check corrigendum, if any Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DUSHYANT RAWAL