EMCO LIMITED Vs. DELHI TRANSCO LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Sec. 29A(5)[ Time limit for arbitral award. - (1) The award in matters other than international commercial arbitration shall be made by the arbitral tribunal within a period of twelve months from the date of completion of pleadings under sub-sec. (4) of Sec. 23: Provided that the award in the matter of international commercial arbitration may be made as expeditiously as possible and endeavour may be made to dispose of the matter within a period of twelve months from the date of completion of pleadings under sub-sec. (4) of Sec. 23. ***** (3) The parties may, by consent, extend the period specified in sub-sec. (1) for making award for a further period not exceeding six months. (4) If the award is not made within the period specified in sub-sec. (1) or the extended period specified under sub-sec. (3), the mandate of the arbitrator(s) shall terminate unless the court has, either prior to or after the expiry of the period so specified, extended the period: Provided that while extending the period under this sub-sec. , if the court finds that the proceedings have been delayed for the reasons attributable to the arbitral tribunal, then, it may order reduction of fees of arbitrator(s) by not exceeding five per cent for each month of such delay: Provided further that where an application under sub-sec. (5) is pending, the mandate of the arbitrator shall continue till the disposal of the said application: Provided also that the arbitrator shall be given an opportunity of being heard before the fees is reduced. (5) The extension of period referred to in sub-sec. (4) may be on the application of any of the parties and may be granted only for sufficient cause and on such terms and conditions as may be imposed by the court.] of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ('the 1996 Act') seeking extension of the mandate of a three member Arbitral Tribunal, which was in seisin of the disputes between the parties.

(2.) Mr. Prashant Mehta, learned Counsel for the respondent submits that this petition is misconceived. He draws my attention to the order dtd. 11/4/2019 passed by the learned Presiding Arbitrator of the Arbitral Tribunal, which reads as under:

(3.) I find myself in agreement with Mr Mehta.