Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Anup Jairam Bhambhani, J.
Harkirat Singh Sodhi – Appellant
Versus
Oram Foods Pvt. Limited & Ors. – Respondents
O.M.P. (MISC). (COMM.) 186 of 2021
Decided On : 28-06-2023
Extension of Time - Arbitration Proceedings - Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 29A(4), 29A(5), 29A(8)
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner seeks extension of time for completion of arbitral proceedings due to the demise and withdrawal of arbitrators. The respondents failed to comply with an interim order, and the arbitral proceedings were affected by the COVID-19 pandemic.
Finding of the Court:
The court allowed the petition, extending and regularizing the mandate of the arbitrator until the date of the rendered award. The respondents were directed to pay the entire balance arbitral fee and costs.
Issues: Extension of time for completion of arbitral proceedings, impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on arbitration timelines, compliance with interim orders, and interpretation of the 2019 Amendment Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the exceptional circumstances, the impact of the pandemic, and the directions of the Supreme Court in determining the time period for completion of arbitral proceedings.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and the respondents were directed to pay the entire balance arbitral fee and costs.
JUDGMENT
Anup Jairam Bhambhani, J.
Brief Overview
1. By way of the present petition under section 29A(4) read with sections 29A(5) and 29A(8) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (`A&C Act') the petitioner seeks a direction granting extension of time for completion of arbitral proceedings that are on-going between the petitioner and the respondents before Hon'ble Dr. Justice Mukundakam Sharma, former judge of the Supreme Court of India under the aegis of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (`DIAC').
2. Briefly, the genesis of the disputes between the parties is a registered Lease Deed dated 05.07.2016 for the Second Floor and Third Floor of property bearing No. N-8 (Block `N. Market), Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi (`subject premises') that was signed between the petitioner and respondent No.1. Arbitral proceedings arose from certain defaults committed by the respondents in payment of rental amounts; as a consequence of which the petitioner terminated the lease deed on 17.04.2017. Subsequent to termination of tenancy, the parties signed a Settlement Agreement dated 08.06.2017, despite which settlement however, the respondents continued to default in payment of the rental amounts, which lead the petitioner to issue another termination notice dated 14.03.2018, directing the respondents to hand-back possession of the subject premises within 15 days of the notice i.e., by 31.03.2018. The respondents however failed to hand-back possession of the subject premises, which were also sealed by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi on 30.05.2018.
3. Thereafter, on 14.12.2018, upon the petitioner's `Request for Arbitration' filed before the DIAC, Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.K. Mehra, former Judge of the Delhi High Court was appointed as the learned sole arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes that had arisen between the parties. On 26.03.2019 the petitioner filed his statement of claim before Justice Mehra; whereupon respondent No.3 filed his reply and statement of defence on 22.05.2019; and respondents Nos. 1 and 2 filed their joint reply and statement of counter-claims on 23.05.2019.
4. However, Justice Mehra passed away on 21.05.2019.
5. In the meantime, sometime in July 2019 the petitioner filed his rejoinder to the respondents' statement of defence and reply to the counter-claims; and the respondents then filed their rejoinder to the petitioner's reply.
6. Pleadings are stated to have been complete as of 29.08.2019.
7. By reason of passing-away of Justice Mehra, on 06.09.2019 the DIAC appointed Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil Kumar, another former Judge of the Delhi High Court as the learned arbitrator in the matter. Proceedings went on before Justice Anil Kumar; and on 17.10.2020, while disposing-of an application under section 17(ii)(b) of the A&C Act, the learned arbitrator directed respondent No.1 to clear all arrears of rent/charges for use and occupation of the subject premises as well as arrears of damages that were due to the petitioner. The respondents are stated to have failed to comply with that interim order; which constrained the petitioner to file for execution of that order before the learned ADJ, Saket District Courts, New Delhi.
8. From February 2021 onwards however, respondents Nos. 1 and 2 stopped appearing before the learned arbitrator.
9. Regrettably, on 23.04.2021 Justice Anil Kumar also passed away.
10. In view of the demise of the second sole arbitrator, on 28.04.2021, the petitioner wrote yet again to the DIAC for the appointment of another substitute arbitrator. In response to that request, on 02.07.2021, the DIAC appointed Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Bhalla, former Judge of the Punjab & Haryana High Court as the learned sole arbitrator to take forward the proceedings.
11. However on 17.08.2021 Justice Bhalla withdrew from the arbitral proceedings.
12. Consequently, on 16.09.2021 the DIAC appointed Hon'ble Dr. Justice Mukundakam Sharma, former Judge of the Supreme Court as the learned sole arbitrator,
AI
Exceptional circumstances and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic can be considered in determining the time period for completion of arbitral proceedings.
Extension of Sole Arbitrator's mandate under the Arbitration Act requires sufficient cause, unaffected by procedural misconduct by arbitrator, especially when delays arise from the respondent's actio....
Court extends arbitrator's mandate under Section 29A(5) for sufficient cause including clerical errors, procedural delays, pandemic effects not attributable to parties, ensuring logical conclusion of....
Court extends arbitrator's mandate post-termination under Section 29A(5) for sufficient cause like procedural and administrative delays not attributable to petitioner, ensuring practical, expeditious....
The court ruled that delays in arbitral proceedings due to administrative reasons and the COVID-19 pandemic justified extending the Arbitrator's mandate under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conci....
Court extends arbitrator's mandate under Section 29A(5) post-expiry and termination upon sufficient cause, quashing abeyance where delays due to respondent and administration, prioritizing efficient ....
The court ruled that extensions of time for arbitral proceedings are warranted when delays are not attributable to the parties, prioritizing efficiency and justice in the arbitration process.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
