Back
2017 Supreme(Raj) 1673
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
Mohammad Rafiq, J.
R.P. Choudhary Huf - Appellant
Vs.
M/s. Sunrise Builders - Respondent
Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 451 of 2017 In Arbitration Application No. 38 of 2013
Decided On : 08-12-2017
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Shri Alok Garg
For the Respondent: Shri J.P. Goyal, Ms. Reena Gaharwar
Headnote:
Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 – Section 26 – Arbitration and Conciliation Act of 1996 – Section 21, 11 – Evidence – Arbitration – This application has been filed with prayer that time may be extended for passing award with regard to counter claim filed by respondent, whereas objection of learned senior counsel for respondent is that counter claim is not tenable in law and therefore time may not be extended solely for purpose of passing award on counter claim – Held, non-claimant has filed this application by way of abundant caution, this Court in interest of parties, is inclined to extend time for passing award by further six months – As regards objection raised by learned counsel for claimant with regard to counter claim, this Court cannot go into such objection in scope of present application – It is upto learned Arbitrator to deal with all such objections and decide same in accordance with law – Application is Dismissed
Mohammad Rafiq, J.
This application has been filed with the prayer that the time may be extended for passing the award with regard to counter claim filed by the respondent, whereas the objection of the learned senior counsel for the respondent is that the counter claim is not tenable in law and therefore the time may not be extended solely for the purpose of passing the award on counter claim.
2. Learned counsel for the parties however agree that the proceedings before the learned Arbitrator are at the stage of evidence and have not been completed. Prima facie, in view of Section 26 of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015, the Amendment Act, 2015 would not be applicable to proceedings, which as per the provisions of section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act of 1996, had already commenced.
3. The arbitral proceedings in the present case were commenced in 2013 when the application for appointment of Arbitrator was filed before this Court under section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Even then, in view of the fact that the non-claimant has filed this application by way of abundant caution, this Court in the interest of parties, is inclined to extend the time for passing the award by further six months. As regards the objection raised by the learned counsel for the claimant with regard to counter claim, this Court cannot go into such objection in the scope of the present application. It is upto the learned Arbitrator to deal with all such objections and decide the same in accordance with law.
4. With the above observations, the application is disposed off.
