M/S. Krishna Construction Co. vs Delhi Development Authority
1994 Latest Caselaw 778 Del

JUDGMENT

Vijender Jain, J.

1. This is a petition under Section 28 of the Arbitration Act, 1942 filed by the petitioner Mr. Sareen, learned counsel for the petitioner, has argued that in this matter an Agreement was entered into between the petitioner and the respondent in the year 1984 for construction of 960 MIG houses. He says that certain disputes arose and the petitioner asked the respondent to appoint an Arbitrator. When the respondent failed to appoint an Arbitrator, a petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act was filed in this court and pursuant thereto a retired Chief Engineer of the respondent itself was appointed as Arbitrator by the respondent, who entered into the reference, Mr. Sarren has submitted that respondent-DDA in its counter statement, which was filed on 13.7.1992 before the Arbitrator entered into the reference, did not take any objection regarding the arbitrability of the claims of the petitioner. However, subsequently the matter was argued before the Arbitrator on various occasions and the time for making the award expired. Till 26.7.1993 the period of making the award was extended by the mutual consent of the parties. Therefore when extension of time of making of the award was required by both the parties, the respondent did not grant consent for extension of the time for making the award. Aggrieved by this action of the respondent, the petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 28 of the Arbitration Act for enlarging the time of making the award by the Arbitrator.

2. Needless to say that in such matters when an Arbitrator is appointed by a statutory authority pursuant to the arbitration clause contained in the Agreement normally extension or time should be granted as a matter of course until and unless the appointing authority is of the opinion that continuation of the Arbitrator would result in mis-carriage of justice or there are other strong reasons for not granting the consent for such extension.

3. In may view, the attitude of the respondent in not granting extension to the Arbitrator, is not in consonance with the spirit of clause of arbitration. Recourse to arbitration is taken in exclusion of normal common law rights of the parties. I extend the time for making the award by four months from today.

4. Let parties appear before the Arbitrator on 10.12.1994 at 10.30 a.m.

5. Petition is disposed of in terms of the above observations.

6. Copy of this order be given dusty to counsel for both the parties.