Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

55. The last minute expression of his inability to hold the hearing on 21st and 22nd November, 2006 by the Learned Arbitrator, on the ground of other prior commitments on those dates, in these circumstances, conveys lack of commitment to the cause entrusted to the said learned Arbitrator as a member of the Tribunal. Consequently, the scope of the hearing fixed on 20th November, 2006 was limited to the consideration of the petitioner‟s application for production and discovery of documents, and for orders for answer of interrogatories by the respondent. The respondent, however, succeeded in curtailment of the hearing only to 20.11.2006 in the aforesaid circumstance.

56. In the hearing held on 20.11.2006, the petitioner raised a protest against the respondents failure to answer the petitioners interrogatories. The respondent undertook to answer the same within four weeks. The tribunal directed the parties to complete admission/denial of documents and circulate draft issues, and indicate if they would like to lead oral evidence. The next sitting was fixed by the tribunal on 22nd and 23rd January, 2007 at Delhi.

57. In the hearings held on 22nd and 23rd January, 2007, the issues were framed by the tribunal. Additional interrogatories were directed to be answered by the opposite party within two weeks. The respondent was granted time to move an application to amend the statement of defence/counter claim within two weeks. The next sitting was fixed on 15th, 16th and 17th March, 2007.

58. However, once again the respondent defaulted and did not move the application to seek amendment within the specified time. On 10.03.2007, the respondent accused the petitioner of not submitting its list of witnesses; the affidavits of witnesses, or; answering the interrogatories served on the petitioner on 23.01.2007. The petitioner responded through its counsel on 12.03.2007 by pointing out that the respondent had taken time to move an application for amendment within two weeks of the last hearing, but not filed the same till 08.03.2007. This left hardly any time to file reply to the application, which the petitioner wished to oppose. The petitioner sought time to file its reply till 19.03.2007 and, in the circumstances, suggested cancellation of the dates fixed, i.e. 15th to 17th March, 2007. The respondent, did not deny its own default in not filing the application to seek amendment of reply/counter claim in time, but sought to put the blame on the petitioner for not answering the respondents interrogatories. The respondent also joined the request for adjournment of the hearings fixed on 15th to 17th March, 2007. On 14.03.2007, i.e. one day before the scheduled hearing fixed on 15 th to 17th March, 2007, the respondent moved an application to seek condonation of delay in filing the application to seek amendment of the statement of defence/counter claim.

63. The set of hearings which were fixed on and from 28.08.2008 were adjourned due to indisposition of Justice Sengupta (retd.) and the hearing was thereafter fixed for 14th and 15th November, 2008 vide notice dated 29.08.2008. The parties moved a joint application to seek adjournment of the hearings fixed on 14th and 15th November, 2008. Accordingly, vide notice dated 05.12.2008, the next set of sittings were fixed on 2nd and 3rd February, 2009.

64. On 02.02.2009, the respondent expressed its inability to cross examine the petitioners witnesses because the affidavit dated 23.01.2009 of the petitioners witness was received on 29.01.2009 (hard copy). Moreover, the petitioner had not answered the interrogatories of the respondent, raised in 2007. The petitioner was directed to answer the interrogatories in two weeks and the respondent was granted four weeks thereafter to file its affidavits by way of evidence. The hearing was adjourned to 4th to 6th May, 2009. These dates were cancelled due to non availability of the presiding arbitrator, to 20th and 21st July, 2009. The hearing did not take place on 20th and 21st July, 2009 on account of the demise of the father of one of the counsels for the respondent.