JUDGMENT

Jyoti Singh, J. - Present petition has been filed under Section 29A (4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the ''Act''). Petitioner is a small enterprise registered under the Micro Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the ''MSMED'' Act) and provides IT services to various organizations.

2. An Annual Maintenance Contract was executed between the Petitioner and Respondent - South Eastern Railway. As per the Petitioner, it executed the work under the Contract for the years 2009- 2012, to the satisfaction of the Respondent, but no payment was made by the Respondent.

3. It is averred in the petition that Petitioner had requested for appointment of an Arbitrator and while the Arbitrator was appointed by the Respondent, but no date was fixed in the proceedings and for many months nothing was heard either from the Respondent or from the Arbitrator. In these circumstances, Petitioner being MSME registered Company approached the Delhi MSME Facilitation Council as per the MSMED Act and the Council called for Conciliation. Conciliation having failed, the Council referred the dispute for Arbitration to the DIAC (Delhi International Arbitration Centre) and a Sole Arbitrator was appointed.

4. Petitioner filed its Statement of Claim for Rs. 1,40,39,899/-. First hearing was held on 02.01.2018. On 27.02.2018 issues were framed and on 08.03.2018 Petitioner filed its evidence by way of Affidavit. On next five occasions dates were fixed, but cancelled as the Arbitrator was not available.

5. In the hearing on 13.07.2018, Respondent filed an application seeking adjournment of the proceedings, sine die. This application was in view of a stay order passed by Delhi High Court in W.P. (C) 2273/2018 staying the Arbitration Proceedings between the Petitioner and Eastern Railway, which was pending before another Arbitrator at the DIAC and had been similarly referred under MSMED Act. Considering the application, the Arbitrator fixed the same for arguments on 01.10.2018.

6. In the meantime, the Writ Petition was dismissed by the Single Judge on 25.09.2018. On 01.10.2018, the Tribunal called for a copy of the judgment. The judgment was placed on record and dates for admission and denial of documents and further proceedings were fixed for 22.12.2018, 11.01.2019 and 22.01.2019. On 22.12.2018, Respondent filed evidence by way of affidavit and sought time for filing affidavit of admission and denial of documents and the Tribunal adjourned the matter to 11.01.2019.

7. Petitioner avers that, in the meantime, the stipulated 12 months period expired, but inadvertently, the Petitioner realized this only in the month of January, 2019. Hence, in the hearing on 11.01.2019, Petitioner raised the issue of extension of time before the Arbitrator, who in turn sought clarification from the office of the DIAC. DIAC informed the Arbitrator that he had entered upon reference on 18.11.2017 and thus it was within the powers of the Tribunal to grant extension, with the consent of the parties. Respondent sought time to seek instructions and the proceedings were adjourned to 22.01.2019, on which date on the request of the Respondent, case was fixed for 18.02.2019.

8. On 18.02.2019, Respondent''s counsel made an oral submission that it had filed LPA No. 42/2019 against the dismissal of the Writ Petition and could not consent to extension of time, till the Appeal was pending. In the absence of consent, the Arbitrator vide order dated 18.02.2019 gave liberty to the parties to take appropriate steps and consigned the file to records, subject to revival.

9. Petitioner states that Respondent moved an urgent application in LPA No. 42/2019 for stay of Arbitration Proceedings in that matter and on 06.03.2019, the Division Bench directed that without prejudice to the rights of the parties, proceedings before the Arbitrator may go on, but final Award shall not be passed without leave of the Court.

10. It is