UNION OF INDIA Vs. ADVANCED POLYMER TECHNOLOGY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application is filed under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ('the Act' for short) for extension of the period for passing arbitral award in Arbitration Case No.1 of 2017 between the petitioner and the 1st respondent.

(2.) The Central Public Works Department of the Government of India, who is the petitioner, invited tenders for the work of providing and laying Synthetic Athletic Surface at Sports Authority of India Sports Center at Thiruvananthapuram. The tender negotiated by the 1st respondent was accepted and the work was awarded to the 1st respondent - M/s Advanced Polymer Technology, Harmony, USA, as per Ext.P1 letter dated 17.08.2007, with a tender amount of Rs.2,79,01,267/- (Two Crores Seventy nine Lakhs One Thousand Two Hundred and Sixty Seven only). Based on Ext.P1 letter the petitioner and the respondent entered into Ext.P2 agreement; when certain disputes arose between the parties, the 2nd respondent was appointed as the sole Arbitrator to resolve the disputes, in terms of the provisions contained in clause 25 of Ext.P2 agreement. It is stated that the Arbitral Tribunal received the notice of appointment on 8.2.2017. Accordingly, the award was to be passed within a period of 12 months, i.e by 08.02.2018. With the consent of parties, the period for passing the arbitral award was extended by 6 months and thus the award was to be passed on or before 08.08.2018. On 29.06.2018, the 2nd respondent- the Arbitrator, as per Ext.P10 procedural order, ordered either parties to apply and obtain extension of time under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ('the Act' for short). The petitioner has filed this original petition in the above circumstances.

(3.) According to the petitioner, the proceedings got delayed for reasons beyond the control of the parties, but for sufficient cause. It is stated that the claim statement, the statement of defence and the rejoinder have been filed by the 2nd day of the sitting. It is also the case of the petitioner that the delay is attributable to the 1st respondent with its Headquarters in USA and its representative in New Delhi. According to the petitioner, a joint inspection was proposed by the 2nd respondent on 11.08.2017. But the 1st respondent did not accept the proposal.