Indian National Trust For Art And vs Odisha Mining Corporation Ltd
2025 Latest Caselaw 6104 Ori

Orissa High Court

Indian National Trust For Art And vs Odisha Mining Corporation Ltd on 20 June, 2025

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                              ARBP No.63 of 2022


            Indian National Trust for Art and             ....             Petitioner
            Cultural Heritage Conservation
            Institute, Bhubaneswar
                                                              Represented by Adv.-
                                                          Ms. E. Agarwal, Advocate
                                      -Versus-
            Odisha Mining Corporation Ltd.,               ....        Opposite Party
            Bhubaneswar
                                                               Represented by Adv.-
                                                          Mr. P.K. Muduli, Advocate

                                    CORAM:
                           HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
                                            ORDER

Order No.                                  20.06.2025
            I.A. No.10 of 2025
 06.        1.     The Supreme Court's decision in the case of Chief Engineer

(NH) PWD (Roads) vs. M/s BSC & C and C JV and another passed on 13.05.2024 in 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 the notice of this Court.

2. 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."

3. 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.

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 The application is disposed of as withdrawn with liberty as sought.

( Harish Tandon ) Chief Justice

SK Jena/Secy.

Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. Date: 23-Jun-2025 13:05:34