JUDGMENT :

1. The matters have been taken up through video conferencing with the consent of the parties. They have no complaint whatsoever regarding audio and/or video quality.

2. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, both the appeals are being heard together and disposed of by the common order/judgment.

3. Since the instant appeals are under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 against the order/judgment dated 29.01.2020 passed by the District Judge-XIV-cum-Presiding Officer Commercial Court, Dhanbad in Original Suit No.36 of 2019, therefore, this Court deems it fit and proper first to consider the maintainability of the instant appeals before entering into the issue of merit.

4. The instant appeals are against the order/judgment dated 29.01.2020 by which the petitions filed under Section 29A(4) and 29A(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1996) read with Section 10(3) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 2015) for extension of time for arbitration for a period of six months under Section 29(4) of the Act, 1996, have been rejected.

Being aggrieved with the aforesaid orders, the instant appeals have been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 13 of the Act, 2015.

5. The brief facts of the lis as per the pleading made which are required to be enumerated read as hereunder:

Admittedly, the BCCL floated a notice inviting tender on 07.03.2011 for Supply, Installation and Commissioning of Machinery and/or Equipment required for implementation of Powered Support Longwall Technology at Moonidih Underground Project and thereafter successful operation and maintenance for production of coal from XVI Top Seam, in the State of Jharkhand. The project was awarded to M/s INDU - ZMJ - ZHENGZHOU DESIGN - XINFENG CONSORTIUM vide letter of acceptance dated 11.07.2012. A contract agreement was executed on 10.12.2012 between the contractor and the BCCL. Certain disputes arose in between the parties. The BCCL referred the unresolved disputes for arbitration vide Notice of Arbitration dated 05.04.2017. Thereafter, the Arbitration Tribunal comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice H.S. Bedi (Retd.), former Judge of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, presiding Arbitrator; Hon’ble Mr. Justice B. Sudershan Reddy (Retd.), former Judge of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and; Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ananga Kumar Patnaik (Retd.), former Judge of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, was constituted on 12.04.2018.

The factum of constitution of arbitration tribunal was informed by the Presiding Arbitrator to the parties vide letter dated 12.04.2018. The arbitration could not have been completed within six months so the parties have given their consent on 30.11.2018 to extend the period for making the award by six months from12.04.2019 as per the provision of Section 29A(1) of the Act, 1996. The arbitration process could not be completed within time and the argument of the parties were heard till 29.11.2019. The date was fixed for argument as 24.11.2019 and 29.11.2019 by the Hon’ble Tribunal subject to extension of time for making award in accordance with Section 29A of the Act, 1996 and in that pretext, a petition was filed under Section 29A(4) and 29A(5) of the Act, 1996 but the said petition has been rejected against which present appeals have been preferred.

Thus, it is evident that the first appellate court has considered the petitions filed by one of the parties to the arbitration proceeding under Section 29A(4) and 29A(5) of the Act, 1996 read with Section 10(3) of the Act, 2015 and in that pretext it is to be considered as to whether the instant appeals are maintainable or not as the preliminary objection has been raised by the learned counsel for the BCCL.

6. Learned counsel for the both the parties, have jointly submitted that the appeals are maintainable on the ground that the rejection of petition under Section 29A(4) and 29A(5) of the Act, 1996 read wi