Orissa High Court
Department Of Water vs Karunakar Routray .... Opposite ... on 30 July, 2025
Author: S.K. Panigrahi
Bench: S.K. Panigrahi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.20307 of 2025
Department of Water .... Petitioner(s)
Resources, Government of
Odisha
Mr. Sonak Mishra, ASC
-versus-
Karunakar Routray .... Opposite Party(s)
CORAM:
HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI
Order ORDER
No. 30.07.2025
01. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.
2. This Writ Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India with a prayer to quash the order
dated 21.05.2025 passed by the learned Sole Arbitrator,
Orissa High Court Arbitration Centre in Arbitration
Proceeding No.22 of 2024 wherein the prayer for seven
days' time to file Statement of Defence (SOD) has been
rejected and the Respondent/ Petitioner has been debarred
from filing the SOD, as the period of six months
enunciated under Section 23 (4) of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"
for brevity) was due to expire.
3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the
Designation: Personal Assistant
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 01-Aug-2025 17:28:19
learned Sole Arbitrator has held the first sitting on
22.11.2024, thereby setting in motion the timeline under
Section 23(4) of the Act for completion of the pleadings.
The learned Arbitrator granted the claimant time till
10.02.2025 to file the Statement of Claim (SOC)
4. The claimant filed the SOC on 21.01.2025. However, the
Respondent had made a prayer for granting time to file
Statement of Defence (SOD). Accordingly, the learned
Arbitrator granted time on 10.02.2025, 07.03.2025,
25.03.2025 and 22.04.2025. On 20.05.2025 the learned
Arbitrator granted time till 21.05.2025 for filing of SOD. On
21.05.2025, further prayer was made for granting seven
days' time to file SOD, but the same was rejected even
though the interpretation of Section-23(4) of the Act which
becomes clear that the said provision is directory in nature
and not mandatory.
5. He further submits that granting of further seven days'
time would not have caused any prejudice to the claimant.
Also, the final draft of SOD is ready for filing and the
interference of this Court would protect and safeguard the
Petitioner and the public exchequer. It is also submitted
that since the Petitioner is a Government Department and
it has to follow certain procedures and sanction for filing
any documents before the Court which automatically
Designation: Personal Assistant
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 01-Aug-2025 17:28:19
6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner/ State further quotes
the provisions under Section 23(4) of the Act which are
extracted herein below:-
"The statement of claim and defence under
this section shall be completed within a period
of six months from the date the arbitrator or
all the arbitrators, as the case may be, received
notice, in writing, of their appointment."
7. Learned counsel for the Petitioner/ States further
submits that in Yashovardhan Sinha HUF & Anr v.
Satyatej Vyapaar Pvt. Ltd1, the Calcutta High Court has
clearly held that the timeline prescribed under Section
23(4) does not attract any penal consequences for non-
compliance and must therefore be interpreted as a
directory provision. This judgment was upheld by the
Supreme Court by dismissing the SLP on March 18, 2024
vide SLP(C) No.5851/2024. The said principle was also
submitted before the learned Arbitrator but the same has
not been dealt with in the impugned order.
8. He further submits that even after introduction of
Section 23 (4), Section 25 which enunciates the
consequences for default of parties has not been amended.
Section 25 is silent about the consequence of non-
compliance of Section 23 (4) and it is not subject to Section
Designation: Personal Assistant
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 01-Aug-2025 17:28:19
Decided on 19.02.2024 in C.O. No.4125 of 2023
9. It is apparent from the record that though the Petitioner
has been given ample opportunities to file SOD, but it has
failed to file the same in time. In such premises, the
Petitioner does not deserve for further consideration for
extension of time to file SOD. However, considering the
fact that the Petitioner is a Government Department, this
Court is of the view that the Petitioner should be granted
seven days more time reckoned from 30th July, 2025 to file
SOD. It is made clear that if the Petitioner fails to file SOD
within the time stipulated above, no further time would be
granted to the Petitioner for the said purpose.
10. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of.
11. Interim Application, if any, pending is also disposed of.
(Dr. S.K. Panigrahi)
Judge
Ayaskanta
Designation: Personal Assistant
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 01-Aug-2025 17:28:19
