Full Judgment Text
$~18
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 27.09.2017
+ O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 32/2017
INTERNATIONAL TRENCHING PVT. LTD. .... Decree Holder
versus
POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD.
..... Judgement Debtor
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr. Atul Kumar, Advocate.
For the Respondent : Mr. S.B. Upadhyay, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Anisha
Upadhyay and Mr. Nishant Kumar, Advocates.
CORAM:-
HON’BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
27.09.2017
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
IA No.11524/2017 (exemption)
Exemption is allowed subject to all just exceptions.
O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 32/2017
1. This is a petition under Section 29A of the Arbitration &
Conciliation Act seeking extension of time for making the arbitral
award.
2. In the arbitral proceedings, Mr. Justice (Retd.) S.K. Mahajan
OMP.(MISC.)(COMM.)32/2017 Page 1 of 3
was appointed as the Presiding Arbitrator. The Reference was entered
into by the Tribunal on 18.04.2016. The Presiding Arbitrator expired
on 23.09.2016 and thereafter the present Arbitral Tribunal was
constituted on 05.12.2016.
3. The statutory period calculated from the date of initially
entering into the Reference expired on 18.04.2017. With the consent
of the parties, the time for making the award was extended for a
period of six months.
4. The Arbitral Tribunal has noticed that the dispute arises out of
an engineering contract and the documents, referred to by the parties,
spread over several volumes.
5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the parties that the
proceedings could not be concluded within the statutory period on
account of demise of the Presiding Arbitrator and the delay that
occurred in reconstituting the Tribunal and secondly, on account of
the very nature of the disputes between the parties, which are
technical and involves several volumes of documents.
6. Learned counsel for the parties submit that the delay has not
occurred on account of any reason attributable to the Arbitral Tribunal
and the parties have also been diligently prosecuting their respective
cases.
7. Learned counsel for the parties further submit that a further
OMP.(MISC.)(COMM.)32/2017 Page 2 of 3
period of six months would be required for the conclusion of the
proceedings and for making the award.
8. In view of the peculiar facts, as noted above, the time for
making the award is extended by a further period of six months. The
Tribunal is requested to make the award within the extended period.
9. The petition is, accordingly, allowed in the above terms.
SEPTEMBER 27, 2017 SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
st
OMP.(MISC.)(COMM.)32/2017 Page 3 of 3