Calcutta High Court
Hanumandass Rajkumar Pvt. Ltd vs Trilok Kumar Jha on 22 December, 2020
Author: Ashis Kumar Chakraborty
Bench: Ashis Kumar Chakraborty
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction
ORIGINAL SIDE
IA NO. GA/2/2020
In AP/243/2020
HANUMANDASS RAJKUMAR PVT. LTD.
VERSUS
TRILOK KUMAR JHA
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE ASHIS KUMAR CHAKRABORTY
Date : 22nd December, 2020.
Appearance:
Mr. Swatarup Banerjee, Adv.
... for the petitioner.
Mr. Sarajit Mitra, Adv.
Mr. Reetobroto Mitra, Adv.
... for the respondent.
The Court: The respondent in an arbitration proceeding has approached this Court seeking recalling of the order dated September 29, 2020 passed in A.P. No.243 of 2020. By the said order this Court allowed the application filed by the claimant in the arbitration proceeding, under Section 29-A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996(in short, "the Act of 1996") and extended the time for publication of the award by the sole Arbitrator till the month of April, 2021.
It may be noted that by order dated June 11, 2019 passed in A.P. No.139 of 2019 a Coordinate Bench of this Court allowed the application filed by the present respondent under Section 11(6) of the Act of 1996 and referred the disputes arisen between parties relating to the contract dated March 29, 2014 to a former Judge of this Court. As per the amended provisions of sub-Section (4) of Section 29-A of the Act of 1996 which came into force with effect 2 from August 9, 2019 unless the time for publication of the award is extended by the parties mutually or by Court the Arbitrator is bound to make and publish his award within twelve months from the date of completion of the pleadings of the parties.
It is not in dispute that in terms of the said order dated June 11, 2019 the sole Arbitrator entered upon reference and directed the parties to file their respective pleading. Alleging that the present applicant prevented the Arbitrator to publish the arbitral award within the time mentioned above and in the absence of any consensual extension of time for publication of the arbitral award the claimant, the respondent herein filed the application AP 243 of 2020 which was disposed of by the said order dated September 29, 2020 in presence of the Advocate of the present applicant. As mentioned earlier, it is the said order dated September 29, 2020 which is sought to be recalled by the present applicant.
In support of his prayer in this application the applicant pressed two grounds. In the first place it was argued that present case, the filing of the pleading by the respective party was completed in the month of December, 2019 and as such the application A.P. No. 243 of 2020 filed by the claimant, was premature. Secondly, in any event, in view of the orders passed by the Supreme Court on March 23, 2020 in the Suo Moto Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3 of 2020, read with the subsequent order dated July 10, 2020 during the present pandemic situation the time 2 3 for making and publishing the award by the Arbitrator automatically stands extended until further decision of the Supreme Court in the said writ petition. Thus, once again the application A.P. No.243 of 2020 filed by the claimant was premature.
The claimant-respondent, however, raised strong objection to the maintainability of this present application. It was contended that in the present case, filing of the pleading by the respective parties before the Arbitrator was complete in the month of September, 2019. Therefore, the stipulated time for publishing the award by the Arbitrator expired in September, 2020 and the present applicant having not consented to extension of time for publication of the award, the claimant was justified to file the said application, A.P. No. 243 of 2020.
According to the claimant-respondent none of the aforementioned orders passed by the Supreme Court relied by the applicant rendered the application A.P. No.243 of 2020 not maintainable. It was further submitted that the applicant attended some of arbitral sittings held by the Arbitrator after passing of the said order dated September 29, 2020. In the present application it is not the case of the applicant that he is facing any difficulty either to attain the arbitral sitting through virtual mode or to engage any Advocate in Kolkata. It was strongly contended by the claimant/ respondent that the intention of the applicant to file this application lacks bona fide and this 3 4 application is aimed only to delay publication of the award by the Arbitrator.
Considering the materials on record and the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties, it appears that in the present pandemic situation like any other arbitral proceeding, the learned Arbitrator in this case is also holding the arbitral sittings through virtual mode.
In the present case, it is evident that the filing of the pleading by the respective party before the Arbitrator was concluded in the month of September, 2020. Therefore, the first ground urged by the petitioner in support of the relief claimed in this application has no merit. So far as, the second ground urged by the applicant is concerned, it is a fact that the aforementioned orders dated March 23, 2020 and July 10, 2020 passed by the Supreme Court in Suo-Moto Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3 of 2020 are still subsisting. From a reading of the said orders it is clear that the Supreme Court, in exercise of power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, directed that in view of the present pandemic condition the time for publication of any arbitral award stands extended until further direction. Thus, during the subsistence of the said orders of the Supreme Court the application filed by the claimant, the A.P. No.243 of 2020 was premature and not maintainable.
For the foregoing reason, the order dated September 29,2020 passed by this Court in A.P. No.243 of 2020 is recalled. 4 5
With the above direction the application, IA No. GA No.2 of 2020 stands disposed of, without any order as to costs.
(ASHIS KUMAR CHAKRABORTY, J.) mg 5