Delhi High Court
M/S Vil Rohtak Jind Highway ... vs National Highways Authority Of ... on 15 October, 2018
$~ 21
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 15.10.2018
+ O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 42/2018
M/S VIL ROHTAK JIND HIGHWAY
PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. T.K. Ganju, Sr. Adv. with
Manish Dembla and Mr. Abhishek
Bhardwaj, Advs.
versus
NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY
OF INDIA ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Narendra Hooda, Sr. Adv. with
Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Ms. Kritika
Shukla, Ms. Padma Priya and Mr.
Shubham Saxena, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J. (ORAL)
1. This is a petition filed under Section 29A of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short "1996 Act").
2. By virtue of this petition, the petitioner seeks extension of time for
conclusion of the arbitration proceedings. The record pertaining to the
instant petition and the arbitration petition i.e., ARB.A. (COMM.)
No.10/2018, shows that the parties herein are locked in a fierce legal battle.
2.1 The petitioner had earlier approached this Court by way of a petition
under Section 9 of the 1996 Act, wherein, based on certain representations
made, an interim order dated 25.7.2016 was passed, which, restrained the
respondent from taking any coercive steps. This order, however, was
vacated on 9.1.2017.
O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) No.42/2018 Pg. 1 of 4
3. Being aggrieved, the petitioner carried the matter in appeal to the
Division Bench. The Division Bench vide order dated 16.1.2017, set aside
the order dated 9.1.2017 and remitted the matter back to the learned Single
Judge with a direction that the position which obtained in the matter prior to
9.1.2017, will continue to subsist.
3.1 This direction, in effect, restored status quo ante and revived the
interim order dated 25.7.2016.
4. The Section 9 petition was finally disposed of via order dated
12.5.2017.
5. Since, the Arbitral Tribunal was already in place, the learned Single
Judge continued the operation of the order dated 25.7.2016 with a direction
that the Section 9 petition will be treated as a petition filed under Section 17
of the 1996 Act before the Arbitral Tribunal and that the same would be
decided in accordance with law.
6. I am told that in order to hasten the process, the respondent filed an
application on 27.5.2017, for vacation of the interim order.
6.1 Pleadings in the application were completed on 27.6.2017.
6.2 Furthermore, on the very next date i.e., 28.6.2017, the respondent
filed its statement of defence. It appears that arguments on the interlocutory
application were heard on 1.8.2017 & 2.8.2017.
6.3 The Arbitral Tribunal passed the order on the interlocutory
application on 12.1.2018. As indicated above, the said order has been
carried in an appeal to this Court by the respondent. The said appeal is
numbered as Arbitration Appeal (Commercial) 10/2018, is listed on my
board, today.
7. I have heard arguments in part in the arbitration appeal.
O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) No.42/2018 Pg. 2 of 4
7.1 Insofar as the arbitration proceedings is concerned, it is not in dispute
that the petitioner herein has filed its affidavit of admission and denial of
documents as well as an affidavit of its witnesses. The respondent, it
appears, has neither filed its affidavit of admission and denial of documents,
nor filed the affidavit of evidence of its witnesses.
8. The record shows that the last hearing, which was held by the Arbitral
Tribunal was on 10.3.2018. It appears that the respondent has refused to
extend time by mutual consent. The first meeting of the Arbitral Tribunal
was held, admittedly, on 3.3.2017. One of the reasons, which has emerged
as to why the respondent has refused to give consent to extension of time, is
its grievance with the order passed by the Arbitral Tribunal qua the
interlocutory application dated 12.1.2018. That order, as alluded to above,
is under challenge and the appeal is currently being heard by me.
9. Given the aforesaid facts and circumstances, as set out above, it is
evident that the parties have already invested much time and money in the
arbitration proceedings. Therefore, I am of the view that no purpose could
be served in stalling the arbitration proceedings. This position, I am inclined
to take as, in any event, on merits the Arbitral Tribunal will have to rule one
way or the other.
10. Accordingly, I intend to extend the time for concluding the arbitration
proceedings and rendering the award.
11. Insofar as the petition is concerned, this was filed in and about
21.3.2018 and at that point in time, extension was sought till 15.8.2018.
Obviously, the prayer, because of pendency of the proceedings has in a
sense, become stale and therefore, time will have to be consequently
modulated.
O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) No.42/2018 Pg. 3 of 4
12. In these circumstances, the Arbitral Tribunal is granted extension of
time by another twelve (12) months for the purpose of concluding arbitration
proceedings and rendering the award. The period of twelve (12) months will,
however, commence from 10.3.2018.
13. The respondent is given liberty to file an affidavit of admission and
denial of documents as well as an affidavit of its witness. These will be
carried to the Tribunal, if possible, on the next date of hearing. Learned
counsel for the petitioner says he has no objection to such a direction being
issued.
14. For the purpose of revival of the proceedings, counsel and their
parties will appear before the Tribunal on 25.10.2018 at 3.00 p.m. In case
the aforesaid date is not convenient, the Arbitral Tribunal will fix a date
proximate to the aforesaid date.
15. The captioned petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
OCTOBER 15, 2018/pmc
O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) No.42/2018 Pg. 4 of 4
