The court has the discretion to extend the time for filing a reply in an arbitration proceeding under Section 28 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, but such discretion must be exercised judicially and only if cogent reasons are forthcoming.

( 1 ) SOME time in May, 1991, while dealing will) sub-section (1) of Section 28 of the Arbitration Act I had said: "there is no doubt in my mind that no formal application need be moved and that the court may act suo motu The discretion lies with the Court. But then discretion being a much maligned, much mis-used term, the wise-men of law have with a view to tame this wild horse, and to control its swift hoofs, held that discretion must be exercised judicially and only if cogent reasons are forthcoming. If this be the prescription or specification for the grant of extension, and I have no doubt that this is, is it a fit case for exercising the discretion in favour of extension?" (Union of India v. M/s. Associated Producers Co. 1991 (3) Delhi Lawyer 191 ). The learned counsel for the respondent implores that I may as well poss the same very question in the present petition too which also happens to be under section 28 and proceed to answer it within the parameters of my above observations. As per him. I must turn down the prayer for extention of time on two grounds. First, that the petitioner had been guilty of dilatory tactics and, secondly, the arbitrators had themselves been guilty of misconduct,

( 2 ) 1. do stand by my word surely there be cogent reasons for extension of time. But then, is not every case an island unto itself ?

( 3 ) TRUE, as a general rule where a party seeking extension of time has itself been guilty of negligence or dilatory tactice, it cannot get extension (See : J. W. Oliver v. Mian Dost Mohammad AIR 1935 Lah 191; (1) Hindustan Steel v. Amar Nath AIR 1971 Ori 288) (2 ). But then, does it stand attracted to the case in hand? I believe. It is here that the respondent meets its Waterloo.

( 4 ) THE record shows that the first meeting of the arbitrators took place on January 24, 1991 in which the petitioners were directed to file their claim by February 16, 1991. However, this was not done "due to reasons beyond their control" and a? such the lime was extended. A date was also fixed for filing of reply and counter claim by the respondents. Though the petitioner did file its claim, the respondents failed to submit its reply inviting the following comments from the arbitrators: "mr. Seth, learned counsel for the N. T. P. C. made a request for time for filing reply. This is rather unfortunate because on our last hearing on 9th April. 1991, we had given time schedule for filing counter reply. We had given sufficient time to N. T. P. C. and we really feel that there is no real justification for not having filed the reply in time. . . . " On the next hearing adioument was necessitated on account of illness of counsel for the petitioner. The next date fixed was March 26, 1992. However, before the date fixed a letter was received from the petitioner seeking extension of time for filing reply. That letter is of March 20, 1992 and runs as under : "we were directed by the Hon ble Arbitrators to file our reply by 25th January, 1992 but, due to prolonged strike, which is still continuing, at our Works, we could not enter the factory-premises and take-out relevant records. As such, we could not hand-over complete documents to our Lawyer for preparing our reply in the matter. We, therefore, request the Hon ble Arbitrators to grant us four more weeks to file the. reply and also adjourn the hearing fixed for March 26. 1992 as useful purpose would not be served in the hearing fixed for March 2". 1992. We, sincerely regret the delay and the inconvenience caused to the Hon ble Arbitrators arid the opposite party. " 479 On this the time was extended till May 3, 1990. The order having been complied with, the respondent was directed to file rejoinder by July 20, 1992 and as rejoinder was not filed, more time was granted. The next three meetings were consumed by some applications, while the 11th meeting saw the respondent taking objection that arbitration could not proceed as the matter required to be referred first