JUDGMENT :

Prayer: Application filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of O.S.Rules read with Section 29A of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to extend the time limit for a further period of six (6) months in conducting Arbitration No.5 of 2018 as deems fit by this Court.

Prefatory Note :

This matter is listed under the caption ‘FOR BEING MENTIONED’ today.

2. This matter was taken up in the presence of learned counsel on both sides.

3. After an order was pronounced on 03.12.2019, it was noticed that an inadvertent error had crept into the order, as it proceeded on the basis that instant application has been filed prior to notification of section 6 of ‘The Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2019 (Act No.33 of 2019)’ (hereinafter referred to as ‘2019 second amendment Act’ for the sake of brevity and convenience) on 30.08.2019, whereas instant application has been filed after coming into force of section 6 of 2019 second amendment Act, as the date of filing of instant application is 20.11.2019.

4. Therefore, the order passed on 03.12.2019 is recalled and the same shall stand replaced by the instant order. Learned counsel on both sides agreed to such a course being adopted. To be noted, there is no change in the ultimate outcome qua application on hand.

5. Having set out a prefatory note supra, this Court now proceeds to pass orders afresh in application on hand (A.No.9007 of 2019).

Fresh order which will now replace the recalled order dated 03.12.2019 :

6. Mr.R.Karthikeyan, learned counsel representing the counsel on record for applicant and Mr.R.Venkataraman of M/s.Tatva Legal Chennai (Law Firm) on behalf of Respondents 1 and 2 are before this Court.

7. To be noted, third respondent is a Hon’ble former Judge of this Court, who constitutes the Arbitral Tribunal, as a sole Arbitrator. Third respondent shall henceforth be referred to as ‘said AT’ (‘AT’ standing for ‘Arbitral Tribunal’) for the sake of convenience and clarity.

8. Claimant before said AT is the applicant herein. Respondents 1 and 2 before said AT are Respondents 1 and 2 respectively in instant application before this Court.

9. Considering the nature of instant application, said AT, which has been arrayed as third respondent, stands deleted. Learned counsel on both sides, i.e., counsel for applicant as well as counsel for respondents 1 and 2, undertake to communicate this order to Hon’ble former Judge, who constitutes said AT. Likewise, by way of a post script to this order, Registry is also being directed to communicate this order to Hon’ble former Judge of this Court, who constitutes said AT.

10. This Court now embarks upon the exercise of examining instant application on hand. According to Judges Summons, instant application has been filed under Section 29-A of ‘The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996’ (hereinafter ‘A & C Act’ for brevity). At the hearing, learned counsel on both sides submit for the sake of clarity and specificity that instant application is under sub-section (5) read with sub-section (4) of Section 29-A of A & C Act.

11. Prayer in instant application is innocuous and there is no disputation or contestation as learned counsel on both sides submit in unison that extension of time by six months for said AT for passing arbitral award is essential. To be noted, the reasons as to why arbitral award could not be made within the statutorily prescribed 12 months and mutually agreed extended six months (18 months in all) have been articulated in the affidavit filed in support of instant application. Considering the consensus, it is not necessary to dilate on those details and suffice to say that the reasons for arbitral award not being made within 18 months is owing to reasons beyond the control of all concerned.

12. Notwithstanding the above said trajectory, this application raises an interesting legal point as it has been filed by taking the date of first sitting of said AT as the reckoning date for computing aforementioned 18 months.

13. Section 6 of 2019 sec