Bombay High Court
Vipin S/O Madanlal Chouhan vs Amravati Municipal Corporation ... on 10 February, 2021
Bench: V.M. Deshpande
1 mca95.21.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION (ARBN) NO.95/2021
Vipin s/o Madanlal Chouhan,
aged about 51 years, Occ. Business,
r/o Deorankar Nagar, Amravati,
Tq. Dist. Amravati. .....APPLICANT
...V E R S U S...
Amravati Municipal Corporation,
through its Commissioner, having
office at Rajkamal Chowk, Amravati,
Tq. Dist. Amravati. ...NON APPLICANT
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. R. S. Kalangiwale, Advocate for applicant.
Mr. J. B. Kasat, Advocate for non applicant.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM:- V. M. DESHPANDE, J.
DATED :- 10.02.2021.
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally
by consent of learned counsel for the parties.
2. This is an application under Section 29 (A) (4) and (5)
of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. In view of the order
orders, Mr. S. W. Dhanokar, retired District Judge was appointed
as an Arbitrator for adjudication of the dispute between applicant
and non applicant. Name of the Arbitrator was agreed mutually.
2 mca95.21.odt
Mr. Dhanokar also extended his consent to act as Arbitrator on
29.01.2019.
3. In paragraph 7 of this application, various dates of
sittings of arbitral tribunal, filing of written statement, etc. are
given. In paragraph 8, it is stated that the draft issues were filed
on 29.09.2019 by applicants. No draft issues were filed by the
non applicant. The matter was adjourned for filing of draft issues
by the non applicants from 18.08.2019 till 10.11.2019. In spite of
giving chances, the draft issues were not filed by the non appicant.
Therefore, the arbitral tribunal framed issues and the matter was
posted for evidence on 24.11.2019. The applicant filed notice to
admit documents, which was replied by the non applicant on
01.12.2019. On the very same day i.e. on 01.12.2019, the
applicant filed his evidence by way of affidavit. Thereafter, the
matter was placed on 10.12.2019 for examination of applicant.
However, on the said day, nobody appeared on behalf of the non
applicant. In paragraph 9 of this application, the applicant has
given various dates as to why the matter was adjourned from time
to time and more precisely on the requests were made by counsel
for the non applicant for cross-examination.
3 mca95.21.odt
4. Be that as it may, there was outbreak of pandemic. The
applicant submitted that time limit has expired on 28.07.2020.
Therefore, the applicant has filed the present application.
5. Mr. Kasat, learned counsel for non applicant, on
instructions from non applicant, submits that non applicant has no
objection for extension of time. Counsel for the applicant submits
that time may be extended by further six months.
6. In view of above, the application is allowed. Time to
decide Arbitration Proceeding pending before Mr. S. W. Dhanokar,
retired District Judge, is extended by further six months from the
date of receipt of this order.
Rule accordingly. No order as to costs.
JUDGE
kahale
