________________________________________________ vs Vihar
2023 Latest Caselaw 613 HP

                                        1




          IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT
                            SHIMLA

                                    Arb. Case No. 89 of 2022




                                                                     .
                                Decided on: 10th January, 2023





    ________________________________________________
    M/s C & C Constructions Ltd
                                                ......Petitioner





                             Versus

    The Chief Engineer-cum-Project Director Himachal
    Pradesh Road Infrastructure Development Limited
    (HPRIDC), Nirman Bhawan, Nigam





    Vihar, Shimla-171001.
                                               .....Respondent
    ________________________________________________
    Coram

    The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge

    1
        Whether approved for reporting?
    ________________________________________________
    For the petitioner:                Mr.  Ajay      Kumar,     Senior
                                       Advocate with Mr. Rohit,



                                       Advocate, for the petitioner

    For the respondent                 Mr.   J.S.   Bhogal,    Senior




                                       Advocate with Mr. Tarunjeet
                                       Singh Bhogal, Advocate.





    Vivek Singh Thakur, J (Oral)

This application has been preferred by the

petitioner for extension of period to conclude the

proceedings by the Arbitral Tribunal as arbitration

proceedings could not be completed for the reasons

Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

enumerated in the application, which also includes

period of COVID-19 Pandemic.

.

2. As submitted by learned counsel for the

parties, arbitration proceedings are at final stage, and

now, only award is to be announced.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent submits

that the only objection, for extension of time as

proposed, is that Arbitral Tribunal is demanding fee in

accordance with Schedule-IV of the Arbitration and

Conciliation Act, 1996, whereas agreement between

the parties contains the fee schedule, according to

which, the member(s) of Tribunal are entitled to fee

per day and fee has been paid to the members of

Tribunal on that basis.

4. It has been submitted by learned counsel

for the respondent that respondent, for not agreeing to

pay fee to the Arbitral Tribunal being demanded in

accordance with Schedule-IV of the Act, apprehends

bias approach/decision by the Arbitral Tribunal

against it.

5. So far as issue related to payment of fee and

apprehension of bias on account thereof is concerned,

.

present Court, adjudicating the application for

extension of time, is not appropriate forum for that.

Respondent may raise this issue before appropriate

form at appropriate time as is permissible under law.

6. Taking into consideration, averments made

in the application, as well as in the reply and also

considering that proceedings are at final stage and

only award is to be announced, time to complete

arbitral proceedings is extended up to 31st March,

2023.

Application is allowed and disposed of.

(Vivek Singh Thakur ) Judge

January 10, 2023 (himani)