The arbitral tribunal has the implicit power to grant an extension of time and condone the delay in filing pleadings and documents, in line with the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

By this petition filed under section 14(1) (a), 14(2) and 32(2) (c) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the petitioner seeks a declaration that the mandate of the arbitral tribunal constituted by an order dated 8th October, 2013 in Arbitration Petition No.46 of 2012 is terminated. The petitioner also seeks an order that the order dated 30th September, 2014 passed by the arbitral tribunal thereby entertaining and allowing the application of the respondent for condonation of delay in filing statement of claim alongwith documents and proceeding with the arbitration proceeding further be set aside. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this petition are as under :-

2. The petitioner herein was the original respondent and the respondent herein was the original claimant before the arbitral tribunal. On 13th January, 2013, the parties entered into an agreement whereby the respondent was appointed as nonexclusive C&F Agent of the petitioner. The said agreement came to be terminated by the petitioner on 6th April, 2006. The respondent filed a suit (20 of 2007) on 30th March, 2007 against the petitioner in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) No.1, Kamrup at Guwahati and inter alia praying for a money decree of Rs.1,71,24,267/-. By an order dated 19th May, 2008 the said suit was dismissed for want of territorial jurisdiction. The said order was upheld by the Guwahati High Court by an order dated 10th February, 2011.

3. On 20th January, 2011 the respondent filed an arbitration petition (46 of 2012) under section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act inter alia praying for appointment of an arbitrator. By an order dated 8th October, 2013 the learned designate of the Chief Justice appointed two arbitrators for deciding the disputes and directed the learned arbitrators to appoint a presiding arbitrator. The said order for appointment of the learned arbitrators was confirmed by the Supreme Court by an order dated 31st January, 2014.

4. On 11th February, 2014, the arbitral tribunal called a meeting. The arbitral tribunal issued direction to the parties to file pleadings. The respondent herein (original claimant) was directed to file statement of claim togetherwith all the documents on or before 21st April, 2014 and to furnish a copy thereof to the petitioner's advocate by the same date. The petitioner herein was directed to file a written statement and counter claim togetherwith all documents on or before 16th June, 2014. The arbitral tribunal also granted liberty to the respondent herein to file rejoinder and reply to counter claim on or before 14th July, 2014. In the said meeting, the arbitral tribunal also recorded that the parties had agreed that the presiding arbitrator would be at liberty to give further directions, as occasions may arise without calling a meeting of the arbitrators unless the parties otherwise would desire a hearing by the tribunal. The next meeting was fixed on 30th July, 2014 for the purpose of considering the pleadings and to determine the points in dispute.

5. In the meeting held on 30th July, 2014 the respondent herein as well as their advocates were absent. The respondent did not file statement of claim alongwith documents as directed by the arbitral tribunal. The arbitral tribunal recorded in the said meeting that Shri Purekar, advocate had telephonically informed the arbitral tribunal that he wanted two weeks time to take further steps in the matter. The said request for time when communicated to the petitioner by the arbitral tribunal, the petitioner through their advocates opposed on the ground that the date fixed for the filing of the statement of claim had already expired and thus no statement of claim could be filed by the respondent. The petitioner through their advocates suggested that the arbitration proceedings should be terminated and the petitioner be awarded cost of arbitration so far incurred.

6. The arbitral tribunal decided to give an opportunity to the responde