The main legal point established in the judgment is that the term 'Court' in Section 29-A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 should be interpreted in the context of the power to appoint an Arbitrator under Section 11 of the Act, and the power to extend the mandate of the Arbitrator should be exercised by the Court that appointed the Arbitrator.

JUDGMENT :

1. The Arbitration Petition fled by the Petitioner under Section 29-A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, “The Act”), seeks extension of time for completion of the pending arbitration proceedings, by a period of six months.

The brief background facts reveal that the Urban Infrastructure Development Scheme for Small and Medium Towns Scheme (UIDSSMT) Mission was launched by the Government of India in the year 2012. Under the said scheme, the Municipal Corporation of city of Ichalkarnji, proposed construction of two decentralized Sewage Treatment Plants (STP) of 10+8 MLD capacity alongwith ancillary infrastructure such as pumping stations etc. The funding was sanctioned by the Government of India and the State of Maharashtra on the basis of the Detailed Project Report (DPR) submitted by the Respondents. Pursuant to the tender foated by the Respondent on 01/03/2021, the Petitioner’s bid, being the lowest one, was accepted and the Work Order was issued in it’s favour. By the year 2019, the Petitioner claimed to have completed 55% of work and the delay is attributed to the Respondent, as the possession of the land was handed over belatedly alongwith the drawings for STP.

2. The Petitioner was blacklisted by the Respondent and, hence, it approached this Court in a Writ Petition, which was withdrawn, as Respondent No.1 by its resolution extended the time for completion of the work, by a further period of six months. However, this resolution was stayed by the Collector and by the subsequent resolution passed by the Respondent, the contract of the Petitioner was terminated.

The Petitioner once again fled Writ Petition (St) No.4077 of 2020, challenging the said termination and it was disposed off with a liberty to make representation. Another Writ Petition was fled vide Writ Petition (L) No. 98777 of 2020, challenging the resolution passed by the Municipal Corporation in its general body meeting on being listed before the Division Bench on 22/01/2021, the Municipal Council Ichalkaranji informed the Court that it had passed a resolution dated 19/01/2021, to resolve the disputes between the parties by arbitration to be conducted through a retired District Judge. Upon such offer coming from the Municipal Council, the Petitioner agreed to withdraw it’s proceedings pending before the Urban Development Minister as well as the Petition. The Division Bench of this Court, therefore, appointed Shri Amol V. Deshpande, retired District Judge as an Arbitrator to decide the disputes between the parties by directing that arbitration shall be conducted at Kolhapur. The Arbitrator was also directed to make an endeavour to declare the Award within a period of six months from the date of the order.

3. The Arbitrator conducted a preliminary meeting on 08/02/2021 and the proceedings commenced before the Arbitrator. But, its progress was marred in the wake of the Covid pandemic. By consent of the parties, the mandate of the Tribunal was extended by six months and when it expired on 31/08/2023, an application is fled under Section 29-A of the Act, seeking extension of time to conclude the proceedings.

4. Mr. Godbole, the learned senior counsel has raised a preliminary objection about maintainability of the Petition before this Court, as according to him, Section 2 of the Act has defined the term “Court” under Section (2)(1)(e) of the Act. It is the contention of Mr. Godbole that Section 29-A, which was introduced by Act No.3 of 2016 w.e.f. 23/10/2015, has set out the time limit for passing of the Arbitral Award and by inviting my attention to sub-sections (4) to (6) of the said Section, his specific submission is, the word “Court” used in this context must be read as “Court”, as defined under Section 2(1)(e) and there is no justification in the Petition approaching this Court, seeking extension of time and in this case, since the appointment of the Arbitrator is not under Section 11 of the Act.

The learned senior counsel placed relian