The Delhi High Court has held that mandate of Arbitrator is not required to be terminated if delay in initiating arbitral proceedings was caused by Covid 19 PandemiC.
The single-judge bench of Justice Prateek Jalan in this view directed the Arbitrator to file fresh declaration u/s 12 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 as the first one was incomplete and undated.
Brief Facts of the Case
The petition u/s 14 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 was filed by the UoI for termination of the mandate of the sole Arbitrator who despite having been appointed on 03-03-2020 had not issued notice to the parties to hold arbitral hearings till 15-02-2021. The Court directed DIAC to submit its report ijn this regard. DIAC filed its report mentioning therein that arbitral hearings had commenced from 20-04-2021 onwards. It was further stated in the report that the declaration by the arbitrator had been received in its office during Covid period when physical filing was not accepted and the diary number probably could not be noted due to posting of minimal staff. Mr. Praveen Kumar Jain, Counsel for the Petitioner had submitted that the notices sent by DIAC at the belated stage had been addressed to the Director General of Contract Management [The Engineer-in-Chief Branch, Integrated Headquarter of MoD (Army), Kashmir House, Rajaji Marg, New Delhi-110001] while the Chief Engineer, Bareilly Zone was the concerned department which had signed the agreement because of which the respondent could not appear before the Arbitrator and file its statement of defence.
High Court's Observation
The Hon’ble Court was of the view that the mandate of the Arbitrator was not required to be terminated on the ground of delay in initiating arbitral proceedings as the Covid 19 Pandemic had struck soon after the appointment of the arbitrator due to which the functioning of DIAC was also affected.
However, UOI was allowed to get the name of appropriate authority substituted in memo of parties and also to move appropriate application before the Arbitrator to seek extension of time to file its Statement of Defence. Mr. Jain had pointed out that the Declaration of Acceptance and Statement of Independence filed by the Ld. Tribunal was incomplete as exact number of ongoing arbitrations was not mentioned by the Arbitrator as well as no date had been written by the Arbitrator and DIAC on the declaration form.
In light of the submissions made by the counsel for petitioner the Hon’ble Court requested the Ld. Arbitrator to furnish a fresh declaration, correctly specifying all the details necessary to be disclosed and directed the petitioner to appear before the arbitrator on the next date of hearing.
Counsel for the Petitioner
Praveen Kumar Jain with Rashmi Kumari & Shalini Jha, Advocates
Read Order @LatestLaws.com:
Share this Document :Picture Source :
