JUDGMENT

This original petition has been filed by the petitioner invoking the provisions of Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short 'the Act'), with the plea that the learned Arbitrator - earlier appointed by this Court through Ext.P3 order - be directed to recommence the arbitration proceedings, which he has stopped through Ext.P6 order under the provisions of Section 29A(1) of the Act.

2. The petitioner asserts that the learned Arbitrator could not have stopped proceedings under Section 29A, as is stood prior to the year 2019, since it was amended with effect from 09.08.2019, whereby, the period of twelve months commences only from the date of completion of pleadings under Section 23(4) of the Act. The petitioner asserts that the pleadings have not yet been completed and therefore, that the learned Arbitrator was in error in having concluded proceedings in the manner as has been done through Ext.P6.

3. I have heard Sri.Suhail Sehgal, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Shyam Padman, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

4. Sri.Shyam Padman opposed the afore request of the petitioner, arguing that, as is evident from Ext.P6, the learned Arbitrator has found that the entire cause for delay rests squarely on the petitioner, since they neither completed the pleadings nor paid the fees, which was agreed, to the Arbitrator. Sri.Shyam Padman submitted that on account of the lackadaisical attitude adopted by the petitioner, his client has been put to unnecessary prejudice and had to expend large amounts of money; and thus prayed that this Court may not extend the time frame as sought for by the petitioner any further, except on appropriate conditions, including that his client will not shoulder any further responsibility for the arbitral fees or expenses during the extended period. He predicated that, in any event of the matter, until the petitioner pays the agreed fees to the Arbitrator and continues to do so, this Court may not find favour with their plea and prayed that this case be ordered only on such terms.

5. I have considered the afore dialectical contentions of the rival parties and have also examined the order of the learned Arbitrator stopping proceedings, namely Ext.P6, very carefully.

6. The learned Arbitrator has, in paragraph 18 and 19, explained how the arbitration proceedings were delayed and has unequivocally found that the petitioner was responsible for the same. The learned Arbitrator has also recorded that, in spite of sufficient opportunities have been given to the petitioner, they had not paid the agreed fees and consequently, that an order under Section 31A of the Act had been issued, warning them that if the same is not complied with, the proceedings would be stopped.

7. The afore conduct of the petitioner, as noticed by the learned Arbitrator, certainly is deleterious and cannot be normally condoned. However, taking note of the seriousness of the disputes raised and the fact that the respondent is an autonomous educational Institution, I deem it appropriate to allow this request; however, on the following conditions:

(a) The petitioner will pay the fees of the learned Arbitrator until today, along with all applicable expenses, within a period of four weeks from today.

(b) The petitioner will pay the whole of the agreed fees to the Arbitrator during the extended period of time, without the respondent being asked to honour the same, albeit on the specific condition that the learned Arbitrator will make sufficient provisions for the same in the Award to be finalised by him.

(c) In the event the petitioners comply with direction (a)

above within the time frame granted herein, the learned Arbitrator will recommence the proceedings and issue award within a period of six months from the date on which the petitioner makes payment in terms of the said direction. Needless to say, should the petitioner default in any manner, in making payment as per direction (b) above or be found