The court held that the mandate of an arbitrator can be extended for sufficient cause, emphasizing that procedural delays should not prejudice the parties involved in arbitration.

JUDGMENT :

Ranjan Sharma, J.

1. Petitioner [Avneet Goyal proprietor of M/s R.B. Enterprises], has come up, before this Court, seeking the following reliefs:-

“The time limit for completing the Arbitration proceedings in Arbitration case titled M/s R.B. Enterprises vs. Himachal Pradesh State Civil Supplies Corporation being Arbitration Case No. 2 of 2022 pending before the learned Arbitrator Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Senior Advocate, may kindly be extended for a further period of six months or any other orders or directions which this Ld. Court may deem fit be passed in the interest of justice.”

FACTUAL MATRIX:

2. Case set up by Learned Counsel is that petitioner was awarded the work for supply of pulses as per Agreement dated 21.06.2016, entered inter se the petitioner and Respondent-Corporation. The agreement provided for arbitration, in case of any difference, inter se the petitioner and Respondent- Corporation. Since an inter se dispute arose, the petitioner filed an application before this Court i.e. Arbitration Case No.176 of 2022, whereby the Arbitrator was appointed on 04.11.2022 [Annexure P-1]. The Arbitrator commenced the arbitral proceedings on 23.12.2022 and the parties completed the pleadings on 05.04.2023. After completion of pleadings, the arbitral award was required to be passed within a period of 12 months which was further extended with the consent of parties for another 6 months. Despite the total period of 18 months having lapsed, the arbitral proceedings did not conclude. It is the case of petitioner that about 53 sittings were held by the Arbitrator in around a period of 2 years, but still the arbitral proceedings could not be completed. It is further averred that Respondent- Corporation had taken adjournments time and again and had been filing one application after the other, when the matter had reached the stage of arguments, which has resulted in delaying the conclusion of arbitral proceedings. However, on 17.12.2024 [Annexure P-2], the Arbitrator passed an order that his mandate had expired on 01.09.2024 and even after the expiry of his mandate, though the parties had appeared before him, but in the backdrop of the provisions of law, the Arbitrator terminated the arbitral proceedings till the same were revived by either of the parties in accordance with law.

3. Upon listing of this case, learned counsel for Respondent-Corporation, Ms. Parul Negi, Advocate, on instructions, does not seriously opposes the prayer of the petitioner in instant petition.

4. Heard, Ms. Seema K. Guleria, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Parul Negi, Learned Counsel for respondent and have gone through the material on record.

STATUTORY PROVISIONS:

5. In order to appreciate the claim of the parties herein, it is necessary to have a recap of the statutory provision of Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’] which reads as under:-

“29A. Time limit for arbitral award —

(1) The award in matters other than international commercial arbitration shall be made by the arbitral tribunal within a period of twelve months from the date of completion of pleadings under sub-section (4) of section 23 Provided that the award in the matter of international commercial arbitration may be made as expeditiously as possible and endeavor may be made to dispose of the matter within a period of twelve months from the date of completion of pleadings under sub-section (4) of section 23.

(2) If the award is made within a period of six months from the date the arbitral tribunal enters upon the reference, the arbitral tribunal shall be entitled to receive such amount of additional fees as the parties may agree.

(3) The parties may, by consent, extend the period specified in sub-section (1) for making award for a further period not exceeding six months.

(4) If the award is not made within the period specified in sub-section (1) or the extended period specified under sub-section (3), the mandate of the arbitrator(s) shall