Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
M/S Jil-Aquafil(Jv) vs Ruidp Through Project Director & Others on 3 November, 2017
Author: Mohammad Rafiq
Bench: Mohammad Rafiq
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Arbitration Application No. 131 / 2014
M/s JIL-Aquafil (JV), 5th Floor, 13th Premlata, 39, Shakespeare
Sarnai, Kolkata - 700 017 through its Director Mr. Poojan Hitesh
Shah
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan Urban Infrastructure Development Project (RUIDP),
AVS Building, Jawahar Circle, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg - 302
017, Jaipur through its Project Director
2. Rajasthan Urban Sector Development Investment Program
(RUSDIP), Bundi Investment Project Implementation Unit, D-14,
New Colony Bundi-323 001 through its Project Engineer
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. M. Priyadarshi for Mr. Mahendra Singh For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Order 03/11/2017 The office has listed this matter for orders on the letter dated 30.10.2017 sent by the learned Sole Arbitrator, so appointed by this Court while allowing Arbitration Application No.131/2014 vide judgment dated 22.04.2016, wherein request is made for grant of three months time for pronouncing the award.
In the letter it has been stated that the arbitration proceedings were started in time and schedule was also fixed, however, the same could not be maintained because the claim filed was running into 534 pages and the reply was even lengthier running in 774 pages and then rejoinder too. It has been further stated that during the course of proceedings, more documents had (2 of 2) [ARBAP-131 / 2014] been filed and number of witnesses has been examined in the matter and that due to bulky record and some more other reasons intervening in between the proceedings, which included applicant hospitalization for some time and now suffering from vertigo during the course of dictation of the award, the award could not be pronounced during the stipulated time. It is also stated that lengthy written submissions have been submitted.
In view of Section 26 of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015, the Amendment Act, 2015 would not be applicable to proceedings, which as per the provisions of Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act of 1996, had already commenced. Arbitral proceedings in the present case should prima facie be taken to have commenced on 29.09.2014, when the petitioner served on the respondent the notice invoking arbitration clause. Even then, in view of what has been stated by the learned Sole Arbitrator in his letter and to ensure that the proceedings, which have been transacted by the learned Arbitrator thus far, may not be frustrated and should result in final award, this Court is inclined to extend the mandate of the Tribunal in the interest of both the parties and accordingly the mandate is extended for a period of three months in terms of Section 29A(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act of 1996. Ordered accordingly.
(MOHAMMAD RAFIQ),J //Jaiman//2