Orissa High Court
Department Of Water Resources vs Sri Karunakar Routray .... Opp. Party ... on 31 July, 2025
Author: S.K. Panigrahi
Bench: S.K. Panigrahi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.20159 of 2025
Department of Water Resources, .... Petitioner (s)
Government of Odisha
Mr. Debasish Nayak, AGA
-versus-
Sri Karunakar Routray .... Opp. Party (s)
Mr. P. Anup Dash, Adv.
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI
Order ORDER
No. 31.07.2025
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.12 of 2024
wherein the prayer for seven days' time to file Statement of
Defence (SOD) has been rejected and the Respondent/ Petitioner
has been barred from filing of 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 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
Designation: Personal Assistant
Reason: Authentication
Location: OHC completion of the pleadings. The learned Arbitrator granted the
Date: 04-Aug-2025 18:23:11
claimant time till 09.02.2025 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 delays the procedures, though it is unintentional.
6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner/ State further quotes the
provisions under Section 23(4) of the Act which are extracted
hereinbelow:-
"The statement of claim and defence under this
section shall be completed within a period of six
Signed by: LITARAM MURMU arbitrators, as the case may be, received notice, in
Designation: Personal Assistant
Reason: Authentication writing, of their appointment."
Location: OHC
Date: 04-Aug-2025 18:23:11
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 23(4).
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
Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Petitioner fails to file SOD within the time stipulated above, no
Designation: Personal Assistant
Reason: Authentication
Location: OHC
Date: 04-Aug-2025 18:23:11
Decided on 19.02.2024 in C.O. No.4125 of 2023
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
B.Jhankar
Designation: Personal Assistant
