SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Ori) 323

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
SANJEEB K. PANIGRAHI, J.
Paradip Port Trust (PPT) - Petitioner 
Versus
Paresh Constructions and Foundations Pvt. Ltd. (PCFPL) - Opp. Party 
W.P.(C) No.5558 of 2022
Decided On : 12-12-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Prashanta Kumar Nayak, Adv.
For the Opp. Party : Mr. Abhishek Mishra, Adv., Mr. U.C. Mishra, Adv.

Payment of arbitrator fees is a statutory prerequisite for an arbitral tribunal to deliver an award, and the court has limited jurisdiction to interfere with extensions granted under Section 29A.

Headnote:(A) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 29A - Extension of arbitral proceedings - Order dated 22.12.2021 extended arbitral period by six months as non-payment of fees impeded award delivery - Court clarified that tribunal must enter upon reference when first substantive act occurs - Non-payment of arbitrator's fees as statutory condition linked to award delivery. (Paras 20, 27, 33, 57)

(B) Jurisdiction - Writ jurisdiction - Limited scope for interference with discretionary orders under Section 29A - Judicial discretion based on evaluation of delay and necessity for extension. (Paras 36, 54)

Facts of the case:
The dispute arose from a contract for dredging works awarded to a construction firm by the port trust, which was terminated due to failure to meet progress obligations, leading to arbitration and subsequent delays over fee payments and mandates.

Findings of Court:
The findings determined that the extension of the arbitral period was valid, given the circumstances of substantial completion in the proceedings and the need for fee payment prior to award delivery.

Issues: Whether this Court ought to exercise its writ jurisdiction in intervening with the Section 29A order.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that non-payment of arbitrator fees constitutes a statutory precondition for the tribunal to deliver an award and that the discretion exercised by the District Judge in granting an extension was lawful and justified based on the needs of the arbitration process.

Result: Writ Petition dismissed; order dated 22.12.2021 affirmed.

Table of Content
1. challenge to arbitral process initiation and fee issues. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
2. petitioner’s arguments against section 29a application. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
3. opposite party's response and justification of position. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18)
4. clarification of 'entry upon reference' in arbitration. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25)
5. impact of fee payment on the arbitral process. (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35)
6. judicial discretion in extending arbitration timelines. (Para 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50)
7. legality of the ld. district judge's order. (Para 51 , 52 , 53)
8. conclusion on the proceedings and affirming the order. (Para 54 , 55 , 56)
9. final remarks and next steps for arbitral process. (Para 57 , 58 , 59 , 60)

JUDGMENT :

Sanjeeb K. Panigrahi, J.

1. The present writ proceedings arise as a challenge to the order dated 22.12.2021 passed by the Ld. District Judge, Jagatsinghpur in ARBP No. 01 of 2018 wherein, the Ld. District Judge was pleased to extend the mandate of the arbitral proceeding for a period of six months from the date of passing of the order.

I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:

2. The dispute arises out of a contract awarded by Paradip Port Trust (PPT) to Paresh Constructions and Foundations Pvt. Ltd. (PCFPL) for “Shore protection works with sheet piling to facilitate dredging of the BOT Iron Ore & Coal Berth Dock Basin,” pursuant to a work order dated 19.3.2015. The contract was required to be completed by 18.11.2015, but the executing agency achieved only about 7% progress. After issuance of a show cause notice dated 25.1.2016, PPT terminated the contract on 4.3.2016.

3. Following the termination, disputes arose and arbitration was invoked. PPT nominated Shri Madhusudan Dhal, District & Sessions Judge (Retd.) as the Ld. Sole Arbitrator on 9.6.2017, and the Ld. Sole Arbitrator furnished his written consent on 14.6.2017, indicating that fees and other modalities would be fixed at the first sitting.

4. The first proceeding was held on 23.8.2017, during which the Ld. Sole Arbitrator fixed an agreed fee structure consisting of sitting fee, reading fee, administrative expenses, and recorded that the fee for declaring the award would be decided later.

5. Arbitral sittings continued, and by 6.2.2018 the pleadings were complete. It is alleged that the statutory period for publication of the award expired on 13.6.2018, without the award being delivered or the fee for declaring the award being fixed. Subsequent proceedings were held, including a meeting on 25.7.2018, in which the Ld. Sole Arbitrator noted that the date for pronouncement of the award would depend upon payment of the balance arbitral fees computed in terms of the Fourth Schedule.

6. The Ld. Sole Arbitrator thereafter passed orders directing both parties to work out and deposit the balance arbitral fees. On 9.11.2018, the Ld. Sole Arbitrator recorded that if the parties failed to comply with the fee-related directions by 30.11.2018, the arbitral proceedings would automatically stand terminated and no award could thereafter be passed unless a competent Court issued orders to the contrary.

7. An application under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was then filed before the Ld. District Judge, Jagatsinghpur in ARBP No. 01 of 2018 on 29.11.2018. After exchange of pleadings, the Ld. District Judge passed the impugned order on 22.12.2021, extending the arbitral period by six months from the date of the order and directing both parties to pay the arbitral fees equally within two months to enable the Ld. Sole Arbitrator to deliver the award.

8. Aggrieved, PPT filed the present writ petition before this Court in February 2022, challenging the order dated 22.12.2021.

II. PETITIONER’S SUBMISSIONS

9. The Petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 22.12.2021, passed by the District Judge, Jagatsinghpur in ARBP No. 01 of 2018, is unsustainabl

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top