M/S. Dredging & Desilation Co. Ltd vs The Board Of Trustees Of Paradip Trust
2024 Latest Caselaw 12607 Ori

Orissa High Court

M/S. Dredging & Desilation Co. Ltd vs The Board Of Trustees Of Paradip Trust on 1 August, 2024

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                               ARBP No. 25 of 2007
            M/s. Dredging & Desilation Co. Ltd., ...              Petitioner
            Kolkata
                                       Mr. Saswat Ku. Acharya, Advocate
                                      -versus-
            The Board of Trustees of Paradip Trust, ...          Opp. Party
            Paradeep
                                               Mr. S.P. Sarangi, Advocate

                                   CORAM:
                         HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
                     HON'BLE MISS JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO
                                        ORDER

Order No.                              01.08.2024
            I.A. No.2 of 2024

34. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.

2. The oral judgment in this case and three connected cases had been pronounced in the Court on 21.05.2024. But before finally signing the judgment and before it could be uploaded, the order of the Supreme Court in the case of Chief Engineer (NH) PWD (Roads) vs. M/s BSC & C and C JV and another passed on 13.05.2024 Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 10544/2024 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 22-04-2024 in CRP No. 2/2024 passed by the High Court of Meghalaya at Shillong) came to our notice, for which it has become necessary to list these cases under the heading "To be Mentioned".

3. In the above case, the Supreme Court has held as follows :

"The power under sub-Section (4) of Section 29A of the Arbitration Act vests in the Court as defined in Section 2(1)(e) of the Arbitration Act. It is the principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction in a district which includes a High Court provided the High Court has ordinary original civil jurisdiction.

In this case, the High Court does not have the ordinary original civil jurisdiction. The power under sub-Section (6) of Section 29A is only a consequential power vesting in the Court which is empowered to extend the time. If the Court finds that the cause of delay is one or all of the arbitrators, while extending the time, the Court has power to replace and substitute the Arbitrator(s). The said power has to be exercised by the Court which is empowered to extend the time as provided in sub-Section (4) of Section 29A of the Arbitration Act. Hence, there is no merit in the Special Leave Petition. The same is, accordingly, dismissed."

4. In view of the above noted Supreme Court's decision, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this application with a liberty to make appropriate application for extension of the mandate of the arbitrator before the appropriate forum in accordance with law.

5. The application is disposed of as withdrawn with liberty as sought.

(Chakradhari Sharan Singh) Chief Justice

(Savitri Ratho) Judge

SK Jena/Secy.

Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack.