The court established that the right to file a rejoinder in arbitration proceedings creates continuity, thus justifying an extension of the arbitral tribunal's mandate despite significant delays due to procedural complexities.

JUDGMENT :

C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

1. Ordinarily, petitions for extension of the mandate of Arbitral Tribunals are two minute affairs, where the court has only to examine when the mandate terminated and extend it as sought by the parties. Contest is rare in such cases.

2. However, in this case, a simple case of the extension of the arbitral mandate has taken on varied hues, not the least because of the legal inventiveness of learned counsel for both sides.

3. In connection with two Purchase Orders dated 21 December 2004 and 7 January 2005 placed on the petitioner by the respondent, disputes arose. The purchase orders envisaged resolution of disputes by arbitration. As the parties were not able to arrive at a consensus regarding arbitration, the petitioner filed a petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [“the 1996 Act” hereinafter] before this Court. On 22 May 2018, this Court disposed of the petition, referring the disputes to the Delhi International Arbitration and Conciliation Centre (DIAC) to appoint an arbitrator in the matter. After nearly a year, by a communication dated 7 May 2019, Justice M.K. Mittal, a former Judge of the High Court of Allahabad, was appointed by the DIAC as the Arbitrator.

4. In the interregnum, the statement of claim was filed by the petitioner on 12 July 2018 and statement of defence, as well as counter claim, was filed by the respondent on 4 December 2018.

5. On 25 May 2019, on the occasion of first personal hearing, the learned Arbitrator granted time to the petitioner to file rejoinder to the Statement of defence and reply to the counter claims filed by the respondent on or before 29 June 2019 and to pay the pending fees of the Arbitrator.

6. On 4 July 2019, even while allowing an amendment to the SOD filed by the respondent, the learned Arbitrator noted that the petitioner had yet to file the rejoinder, despite time having been granted till 29 June 2019. The submission of the petitioner that he was not in a position either to file the rejoinder or deposit the arbitral fee was noted and, in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 38(2) [The deposit referred to in sub-section (1) shall be payable in equal shares by the parties: Provided that where one party fails to pay his share of the deposit, the other party may pay that share: Provided further that where the other party also does not pay the aforesaid share in respect of the claim or the counter-claim, the arbitral tribunal may suspend or terminate the arbitral proceedings in respect of such claim or counter-claim, as the case may be] of the 1996 Act, the learned Arbitrator placed the petitioner’s claim under suspension. Learned counsel for the respondent was given time to take instructions from the respondent as to whether the respondent desired to pursue the counter claims any further.

7. On 22 July 2019, the petitioner was admitted to corporate insolvency [“CIRP” hereinafter] proceedings by the National Company Law Tribunal Mumbai. [“the NCLT” hereinafter] As a result, on the next hearing fixed by the learned Arbitrator on 23 August 2019, the petitioner was absent. The matter was renotified by the learned Arbitrator for 24 September 2019, on which date the petitioner appeared. The learned Arbitrator directed the petitioner to file rejoinder by the next date.

8. On 31 October 2019, the learned Arbitrator passed the following order:

“ORDER

The Ld. Counsel for the Claimant has filed the photo copy of certified copy of