HARI OM PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. B DATTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 20.11.1991 the Division Bench of this Court had allowed the application of the petitioner against the order dismissing the petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act and had referred the matter to the arbitration of Mr. Justice J.D. Jain, a former Judge of this Court. The order of the Court, it appears was not communicated to the Arbitrator and he entered upon the reference only on 18.8.1994. Time of four months for making and publishing the award having expired on 18.12.1994 the respondent refused to agree to the extension of time to enable the Arbitrator to make and publish his award. This necessitated the petitioner to file the present petition under Section 28 of the Arbitration Act for extension of time to enable the Arbitrator to make and publish his award.

(2.) Notice of the application having been served upon the respondent, reply thereto has been filed and the respondent has objected to the time being extended. It is stated that the petitioner was guilty of undue delay and of contumacious conduct and this Court, therefore, should decline to exercise its discretionary power to enlarge the time as prayed for in the petition. The alleged delay and contumacious conduct of the petitioner is stated to be evident from the fact that the signatures of the respondent were allegedly secured by fraud and misrepresentation on the collaboration agreement which renders the same void as it was alleged to be without consideration. It is also stated that while the order of the Division Bench was passed on 20.11.1991 directing the matter to be referred to the arbitration of Mr. Justice J.D. Jain (Retd.) the petitioner ensured that the Arbitrator did not enter upon the reference till 18.8.1994 and kept the order of the Division Bench allegedly with him till 30.5.1994. Certain other pleas have also been taken regarding the merits of the case and according to the respondent the petitioner by using the legal proceedings as means of extortion obtained Form C, Form D and completion certificate on the dates mentioned in the reply. It is, therefore, the contention of the respondent that no case has been made out by the petitioner for extension of time to enable the Arbitrator to make and publish his award.

(3.) In rejoinder the petitioner has refuted the allegations made in the reply and it is stated that since the order appointing Mr. Justice J.D. Jain (Retd.) as the Arbitrator was not communicated by the High Court, the Arbitrator was unable to enter upon the reference despite being approached by the parties to do so.