Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2 of 9 Ultimately, petitioner is stated to have filed its reply to the claim on 15.04.2019. Replication thereto was filed by respondent no.1 on 08.07.2019. Subsequently, petitioner filed its counter claim on 15.03.2021 inter alia seeking recovery of Rs.3,45,86,016/- along with interest. Reply thereto was filed by the Corporation with a rejoinder also being submitted by the petitioner. The matter was thereafter listed for claimant's evidence. Averments have been made in the petition regarding certain adjournments being given by the learned Arbitrator to facilitate the officials of respondent no.1 but not for once facilitating the petitioner. Convenience of the officials of the claimant-Corporation, it is stated, was taken into account looking to the paddy season. Ultimately, petitioner, it is stated, filed an application dated 29.11.2021 seeking termination of the mandate of the learned Arbitrator on the grounds that the Arbitrator seems to be bent upon obliging the claimant-Corporation as he was granting adjournments at their asking without even seeking concurrence from the petitioner leading to a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the petitioner regarding absence of impartiality of the learned Arbitrator. It is further stated that as the learned Arbitrator had entered reference in the year 2018 as per provisions of the then Section 29-A of the Arbitration Act, arbitration proceedings had to be concluded within 12 months from the date of entering reference and it is only with consent of parties that an extension of six months could be sought, failing which mandate of the Arbitrator stands terminated unless extended by the Court.

Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that as per provisions of Section 29-A of the Arbitration Act, as it stood when the Arbitrator entered reference, mandate of the Arbitrator would automatically stand terminated on expiry of the period of 12 months from the date he entered reference, until and unless specifically extended by an order of the Court of competent jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that a perusal of the zimni orders would reveal that adjournments were given at the asking of the counsel for the respondent-Corporation whereas when an adjournment was sought even for a genuine cause by the counsel for the petitioner, there was much reluctance and on one occasion even cost was imposed upon the petitioner while adjourning the matter. Learned counsel for the petitioner had argued that the present is a case which falls under the category of exceptional rarity, which calls for intervention of this Court at this stage. Proceedings before the Arbitrator, it is submitted, should not be permitted to continue in this manner. It is submitted that the proceedings before the Arbitrator are by themselves illegal and learned Arbitrator is proceeding without jurisdiction. It is thus prayed that this revision petition be allowed.

Section (4) of Section 23."
Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the parties shall be governed by the unamended provision as the Arbitrator was appointed on 10.07.2018 whereas learned counsel for respondent no.1 argued that it is the amended provision, which shall be applicable. While being conscious of the fact that application dated 29.11.2021 filed by the petitioner seeking termination of the mandate is still pending before the learned Arbitrator, reference is made to these provisions as categoric arguments had been raised in this respect. It is relevant to note that the petitioner has not at any stage raised such an objection and has even proceeded to file its reply to the claim petition besides its counter claim subsequent to the lapse of one year since the learned Arbitrator entered reference. It is further relevant to note that the amended Section 23(4) and 29(a)(1) of the Arbitration Act are procedural in nature, therefore, said provisions have been held to be applicable retrospectively to all pending arbitral proceedings as on the effective date i.e. 30.08.2019. Gainful reference in this regard can be made to judgments of the Delhi High Court in Shapoorji Pallonji and Co. Private Ltd. Vs. Jindal India Tharmal Power Ltd., 2021(5) RAJ 189 and ONGC Petro Additions Ltd. Vs. Ferns