Delhi High Court
Zillion Infraprojecs Pvt. Ltd Through ... vs Fab-Tach Works & Constructons Pvt. Ltd. on 19 December, 2023
Author: Manoj Kumar Ohri
Bench: Manoj Kumar Ohri
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 19.12.2023
+ O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 674/2023 and I.A. 25619/2023
ZILLION INFRAPROJECS PVT.
LTD THROUGH ANANT SAXENA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sumit Kumar, Ms. Kumari
Supriya and Mr. Vivek Sharma,
Advocates.
Versus
FAB-TACH WORKS & CONSTRUCTONS
PVT. LTD.. ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Seemant K. Garg and Mr.
Krishan Kumar, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. The present petition has been instituted under Section 29A(4) of the
Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter, referred to as 'A&C Act')
seeking to extend the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal (hereinafter, referred
to as 'AT') for conclusion of the arbitral proceedings and making of the
arbitral award.
2. Briefly, the facts in a nutshell are that the petitioner was awarded a
Works Contract by M/s Bridge & Roof India Ltd. vide Letter of Intent dated
20.03.2014. Pursuant to the same, the petitioner issued a letter of intent
dated 23.04.2014 to the respondent to carry out the work of transportation of
materials from storage yard to work site alongwith ancillary works on back-
O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 674/2023 Page 1 Signed
of 3 By:MANOJ
Signing Date:22.12.2023
18:56:48
to-back basis. Disputes having arisen between the parties, the respondent
invoked arbitration on 17.08.2015. On 14.09.2015, the Sole Arbitrator
entered into reference. The record further reveals that after completion of
pleadings, the AT was reconstituted on 30.11.2016 and the arbitral
proceedings continued.
3. Admittedly, the matter has reached the fag end and was listed for final
arguments on 14.12.2023, when the present petitioner (respondent in the
arbitral proceedings) preferred an application for deferment of the
proceedings on the ground that he intended to move the present petition
seeking extension of the mandate of the AT. The respondent has opposed the
request and while referring to the earlier procedural order passed on
18.05.2018, has contended that no extension is required as the arbitration
was invoked prior to the coming into force of Arbitration & Conciliation
(Amendment) Act, 2015.
4. Petitioner contends that the petition is preferred by way of abundant
caution.
5. Notably, the Arbitration & Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015
came into force on 23.10.2015. Section 26 of the Amendment Act provided
that the Amendment Act would not apply to the arbitral proceedings that had
already commenced in accordance with Section 21 of the Principal Act,
before the commencement of the Amendment Act, unless the parties
otherwise agreed. In other words, the applicability of the Amendment Act
was made prospective unless the parties agreed for its retrospective
application.
6. The question that arises for consideration is as to whether Section
29A and the time limits prescribed therein would apply to arbitral
O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 674/2023 Page 2 Signed
of 3 By:MANOJ
Signing Date:22.12.2023
18:56:48
proceedings that had commenced prior to coming into force of the
Arbitration & Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015.
7. It is pertinent to note that in the Principal Act, no time limits were laid
down for making of an arbitral award and such time limits were laid down
for the first time by way of Section 29A as added vide the Arbitration &
Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015.
8. The commencement of arbitral proceedings is relatable to Section 21
of the Act. In the usual course, the arbitral proceedings in respect of a
particular dispute commences on the date on which a request for reference
of dispute to the arbitration is received by the respondent, unless otherwise
agreed by the parties. Concededly, the arbitral proceedings commenced prior
to coming into force the Arbitration & Conciliation (Amendment) Act,
2015.
9. As such, neither Section 29A nor the time limit prescribed therein
would be applicable to the present arbitral proceedings. Additionally, none
of the parties have any objection to the continuation of the arbitration
proceedings. The issue raised being only academic in nature, is answered
accordingly.
10. The petition alongwith pending application is disposed of
accordingly, albeit with a request to the AT to conclude the proceedings
expeditiously.
MANOJ KUMAR OHRI
(JUDGE)
DECEMBER 19, 2023/rd
O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 674/2023 Page 3 Signed
of 3 By:MANOJ
Signing Date:22.12.2023
18:56:48
