Rajasthan State Food And Civil ... vs Limtex (India) Limited
2021 Latest Caselaw 4079 Raj/2

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                     BENCH AT JAIPUR

             S.B. Arbitration Application No. 23/2019
Rajasthan State Food And Civil Supplies Corporation Limited
Through Its Officer In Charge, Having Head Office At 501, 5th
Floor, Kisan Bhawan, Lal Kothi, Jaipur- 302015
                                                                   ----Petitioner
                                    Versus
Limtex (India) Limited, Having Registered Office at The Legacy
2Nd Floor, 25A, Shaekspere Sarani, Kolkata And Branch Office At
1013, Agarwal Market, Mishra Raj Ji Ka Rasta, Chandpole Bazar,
Jaipur
                                                                 ----Respondent

For Petitioner(s)         :     Mr. Vibhor Sharma
For Respondent(s)         :     Mr. Sandeep Taneja with
                                Mr. Kartikeya Sharma


                    HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
                              Order

26/08/2021

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. This application has been filed under Section 29A (4) of

the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to

as the 'Act of 1996') seeking extension of time granted to the

Arbitrator to complete the proceedings.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant drew my attention to

the order passed by the learned Arbitrator (Annexure-3) and in

particular, order dated 05.03.2019 which reads as under:-

"Manish Biyani present for the claimant Sh. Vibhor Sharma Adv. appears for the respondent Shri Lokesh Dwivedi OIC is also present in person.

Both the parties are not prepared to argue the case as they intend to seek an extension of period for making the award from the Hon'ble High Court Shri Vibhor

(2 of 3) [ARBAP-23/2019]

Sharma submits that he shall more on application in the High Court very soon. Hence, one month's time may be given for obtaining an order from the high court for extension of period from the High Court. Prayer stands allowed as the period of 1 ½ yrs. is going to complete tomorrow and it is not possible to hear the arguments and pass an award within a short period of one day.

Let the matter now come up on 29.03.2019 at 5.00 PM at my office-cum-residence."

4. It appears that pursuant to the aforesaid directions

issued by the learned Arbitrator, the present application came to

be filed.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that

present application on behalf of the applicant is not maintainable

and in this respect drew the attention of the Court towards Section

29A (5) and Section 2(1)(e) which defines the "Court." It was

submitted on behalf of the respondent that Court means the

principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction in a district, and

includes the High Court. In this regard, he placed reliance on

following two judgments-:

1. Doshion Private Limited Vs. Hindustan Zinc Limited and Ors., reported in AIR 2018 Raj 33

2. State of West Bengal Vs. Associated Contractors, reported in AIR 2015 SC 260

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the applicant

submitted that an application under Section 29A (4) of the Act of

1996 has to be made before the Court which appointed the

learned Arbitrator and in this case this Court under Annexure-1

dated 18.08.2017 in S.B. Arbitration Application No.35/2017

appointed the Arbitrator. Consequently, this Court alone can

exercise powers under Section 29 of the Act of 1996. In support of

his argument, he placed reliance on judgment of the Delhi High

(3 of 3) [ARBAP-23/2019]

Court in the case of DDA Vs. Tara Chand Sumit Construction

Co. reported in 2020(2) ARBLR505(Delhi).

7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and

perusing the judgments cited at the Bar as well as the order

passed by the learned Arbitrator, this Court is of the clear opinion

that the objections raised by the respondent in this regard are of

no consequence at the present stage inasmuch as no award has

yet been passed and the only issue before this Court is whether

the prayer of the applicant to seek extension of time granted to

the sole Arbitrator to pass the award is to be extended or not. In

other words, this Court at the present stage is not deciding any lis

vis-a-vis between the parties. Consequently, issues raised by the

respondent as objection to maintainability to the present

application stands rejected.

8. In view of the above, this Court of the view that the

mandate granted to the Arbitrator, for the reasons quoted in the

order hereinabove, stands extended for a further period of six

months from today. Both the parties are requested to appear

within a period of one week from today in order to ensure that

proceedings before the learned Arbitrator can be concluded at an

early date. It is made clear that nothing stated in this order shall

prejudice either parties in the proceedings pending before the

learned Arbitrator.

9. The application is accordingly disposed of.

(INDRAJIT MAHANTY),CJ

BRIJ MOHAN GANDHI /JKP-1

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)