RAJIV SHAKDHER, J.

OMP 692 of 2011 & IA No. 14514 of 2011 (Condonation of delay in re-filing petition)

IA No. 15690/2010 (for extension of time by arbitrator) in OMP No. 235/2008

1. This is a petition, essentially, filed under Section 14(1)(a) and 14(2) read with Section 11(6) and 11(8)(b) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short the 1996 Act).

1.1 In addition to the above, provisions of Section 18(4) of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (in short the 2006 Act), have also been invoked.

1.2 In effect, the petitioner seeks to replace the present incumbent, who is functioning as an arbitrator, namely, one Sh. M.K. Jain, with a court appointee. Sh. M.K. Jain has been arrayed as respondent no.3 to the present proceedings. Apparently, since the 2006 Act is applicable to the petitioner, one of the prayers made in the petition adverts to the fact that the micro and small enterprises council/centre could act as an arbitrator or as conciliator under Section 18(4) of the 2006 Act. Though, during the course of arguments, this prayer was not pressed.

2. I may only note that the petitioner had earlier filed a petition bearing OMP No. 235/2008, in this court, for the very same relief, when a Single Judge of this court vide order dated 25.02.2010 disposed of the said petition, albeit with the consent of parties, by replacing the then arbitrator, one, Sh. S. Mazumdar. It was recorded that the parties had agreed that the arbitration proceeding shall stand concluded within six (6) months from the date, the new arbitrator entered upon reference.

2.1 It is in these circumstances, that respondent no.3 was appointed as an arbitrator.

2.2 The hope that the proceedings would stand concluded within six (6) months, stood belied, as is obvious’ from the turn of events. It is in these circumstances, that the petitioner, appears to have approached this court, once again, for the removal of respondent no.3 as the arbitrator.

3. I may also note that the captioned petition was moved and, consequently, got listed on for the first time on 13.09.2011, when my predecessor was informed that an application for extension of time, being: IA No. 15690/2010 had been filed in OMP No. 235/2008. The said application was, however, listed before another Single Judge of this court. Consequently, the learned Judge directed that the captioned petition along with IA No. 14514/2011, be placed before the Judge, who was dealing with IA No. 15690/2010 filed in OMP No. 235/2008. IA No. 14514/2011 is an application filed by the petitioner seeking condonation of delay in re-filing. According to the petitioner, there is a delay of 24 days in re-filing the captioned petition, i.e., OMP No. 692/2011.

3.1 Though no formal notice was issued, parties have completed pleadings in the matter, whereupon arguments were heard and judgment was reserved. There is no formal reply filed by the respondents to the aforementioned application seeking condonation of delay in re-filing. Reply to the main petition has, however, been filed only by respondent no.1 (IOCL), which in effect, is the contesting party. Respondent no.2 is the Director (Marketing), IOCL, while respondent no.3, as noticed above, is the person who is presently charged with conducting arbitration in the matter.

3.2 It appears that since the captioned petition and IA No. 15690/2010, in OMP No. 235/2008, were being listed together, after order dated 13.09.2011 was passed in the instant matter, erroneously, based on the statement made by counsel for the petitioner that OMP No. 235/2008 had been rendered infructuous, and an order came to be passed on 14.08.2014 disposing of the said petition. Though this statement was made in the presence of counsel for the IOCL, the correct position was not brought to the notice of the court. The record would reflect, as indicated above, that OMP No. 235/2008 was in fact disposed of on 25.02.2010. Therefore, what was pending, was only IA No. 15690/2010. Having noticed