The High Court has the authority to extend the mandate of the Arbitrator if the arbitration proceeding could not be concluded within a reasonable time, as per Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

JUDGMENT

Biswanath Rath, J. - This matter is taken up by video conferencing mode.

2. This writ petition involves a challenge to the order passed by the District Judge, Bhubaneswar vide Anenxure-3 in ARB(P) No.68 of 2018, dated 3.8.2019, allowing an application under Sub-Section (4) and (5) of Section 29-A of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. As it appears, learned District Judge, Bhubaneswar in allowing the arbitration petition finally extended the mandate of the Arbitrator for one year with effect from the date of judgment dated 3.8.2019. Even though the extension of the mandate of the Arbitrator has expired in the meantime, but however, since the mandate of the Arbitrator requires extension in the peculiar circumstance involving the case, the matter needs to be finally adjudicated. This Court thus proceeds to record the factual aspect involving the case as follows :

Parties involved in a dispute regarding the admission of the opposite parties involved herein as a new partner to a farm, namely, M/s.Gangaya Supply Agency. For no amicable resolution of the dispute between the parties, opposite parties involved herein filed an application u/s.11(5) and 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (herein after in short called as 'The Act, 1996') in the High Court and the same was registered as ARBP No.5 of 2015. This ARB(P) was finally disposed of with an order of appointment of Justice Sri D.P.Mohapatra, a former Judge of the Hon'ble Apex Court as sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties. In the disposal of the proceeding on 15.9.2016, it appears after the appointment of the above Arbitrator, learned Arbitrator issued notice to the parties. Opposite Party herein on its appearance filed an application u/s.16 of the Act, 1996 questioning the jurisdiction of the learned Arbitrator. This Court here looking to the order passed by this Court in ARB(P) No.5 of 2015 on 15.9.2016 clearly observing therein that the appointment of the Arbitrator was made after considering the submissions of both the parties and as agreed to by learned counsel for the respective parties, thus there appears, there is grave doubt in the entertainability of the application under Section 16 of the Act keeping in view the specific observation of the High Court in the disposal of ARBP No.5 of 2015 particularly when there involve a consent order for appointment of Arbitrator.

3. Be that as it may, for the arbitration proceeding could not be concluded during reasonable time in terms of Section 29A(i) of the Act, 1996, opposite party filed application under Sub-Sections 4 and 5 of Section 29-A of the Act for extension of time to conclude the arbitration proceeding by the learned Arbitrator. Application so moved to the learned District Judge, Bhubaneswar was registered as ARB(P) No.68 of 2018. The brief further discloses that the opposite party no.2 also filed ARBP No.534 of 2014, the District Judge, in disposal of this ARBP No.534 of 2014 on 20.03.2015 by appointing Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.M. Das (Retd.) as Arbitrator, which order of course did not materialize.

4. In the meantime ARB(P) No.68 of 2018 was taken up for final hearing. After considering the validity of service on the respondents therein and treating the same to have been accepted as sufficient, the above ARB(P) No.68 of 2018 was decided ex parte vide order at Annexure-3 dated 3.8.2019, in the ex parte disposal of the above ARB(P), learned District Judge allowing the application under Sub-Section (4) and (5) of Section 29-A of the Act, allowed the same thereby extending the mandate of Arbitrator for one year with effect from the date of the judgment.

5. Being aggrieved, it appears, the present petitioner brought W.P.(C) No.19068 of 2019 on the file of this Court and this writ petition being accepted, this Court while directing issuance of notice by its order dated 26.11.2019, as an interim measure directed stay operation of the judgment dated 03.08.2019 passed in ARB(P) No.68