Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Tata Capital Financial Services ... vs Siva Industries And Holdings Limited on 30 September, 2022
Author: Chief Justice
Bench: Chief Justice
1
ITEM NO.51 COURT NO.1 SECTION XVI-A
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 1623/2022
IN
ARBITRATION PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 54/2017
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 02-04-2018
in ARBIT.CASE(C) No. No. 54/2017 passed by the Supreme Court Of
India)
TATA CAPITAL FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
SIVA INDUSTRIES AND HOLDINGS LIMITED & ANR. Respondent(s)
(FOR ADMISSION and IA No.123000/2022-EXTENSION OF TIME)
Date : 30-09-2022 This appln.was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Jaideep Gupta, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Kunal Chatterji, AOR
Ms. Maitrayee Banerjee, Adv.
Mr. Rohit Bansal, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Ankur Kashyap, AOR
Mr. Ajith S. Ranganathan, Adv.
Mr. Rohit Rajershi, Adv.
Mr. Aman Bajaj, Adv.
Ms. Misha Rohatgi, Adv.
Mr. K. Parameshwar, AOR
Mr. R. Palaniandavan, Adv
Ms. A. Sregurupriya, Adv
Ms. Arti Gupta, Adv.
Signature Not Verified
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
Digitally signed by
DEEPAK SINGH
Date: 2022.10.10
O R D E R
17:02:56 IST Reason:
The present application seeks extension of time for completion of proceedings before the learned 2 Arbitrator, who was appointed by this Court vide order dated 02.04.2018.
We need not go into and refer to the factual details as to the stages at which the pleadings were allowed to be amended. Suffice it to state that as late as on 15.11.2021, the claims statement was allowed to be amended, to which the amended written statements in defence were filed on 18.08.2022.
It must be stated here that by virtue of various orders of extension granted initially by the High Court and later by this Court, the mandate of the Arbitrator continued till 24.08.2022. Being conscious of the deadline, when an adjournment was sought on behalf of the present respondents, the Arbitrator in his proceedings dated 15.07.2022 had highlighted this issue and shown willingness to adjourn the matter only if the parties consented to the extension of time.
Consequently, e-mails were written to respondent Nos. 1 and 2, copies of which are appended to the paper-book at page Nos. 186-187, consenting to the extension of time.
The present application came to be filed on 26.08.2022, i.e. 2 days after the extension granted under various orders passed by this Court came to 3 an end.
This application has, therefore, highlighted the fact that for reasons beyond the control of either parties, the matter could not be concluded and, therefore, seeks suitable extension of time.
Mr. Jaideep Gupta, learned Senior Advocate appearing in support of the application has invited our attention to various factual details, including the proceedings dated 15.07.2022 and the letters dated 16.07.2022 and 17.07.2022 of consent sent through e-mail by respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, learned Senior Advocate, on the other hand, has relied upon the provisions of Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to submit that once the mandate of the Arbitrator had come to an end on 24.08.2022, the application preferred two days thereafter would not be able to resurrect the mandate, which had expired.
In the given facts and circumstances of the case on record where specific letters of consent were exchanged by the parties, in our view, case for extension is made out.
Without going into the questions of law 4 raised by the learned counsel for the respondents, we extend six months’ time from today to complete the proceedings.
We have been apprised that the matter has been fixed before the Arbitrator on 03.10.2022. The parties shall appear before the Arbitrator on that date so as to facilitate early disposal of the matter.
We make it clear that we have considered the matter only from the perspective whether the extension as prayed for be granted. All other issues are not touched upon by us and the parties are at liberty to raise such grounds and submissions as are available to them in law.
Miscellaneous Application is disposed of accordingly.
(NEETU KHAJURIA) (MATHEW ABRAHAM) ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS COURT MASTER