NILESH RAMANBHAI PATEL Vs. BHANUBHAI RAMANBHAI PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application is filed with a prayer to extend the mandate of the arbitrator and to extend the time for making the award by a period of eighteen months from 24.3.2018. This application arises in the following facts:-

(2.) One Bhanubhai Ramanbhai Patel and his sons had filed petition under Arbitration Act No.56 of 2016 seeking appointment of an arbitrator to resolve disputes between partners of a partnership firm constituted under a deed dated 19.2.2010. The partnership was engaged in the business of processing and selling processed tobacco and dealing in tobacco on commission under the name of M/s. Navdurga Tobacco Company. Respondents in such arbitration petition were his brother Nilesh Ramanbhai Patel, son of Nilesh Ramanbhai Patel and mother of Bhanubhai and Nileshbhai. By detailed judgment dated 10/17.2.2017 all the objections of the respondents against appointment of an arbitrator were turned down. By further order dated 17.3.2017 Shri J.M.Panchal, former Judge of Supreme Court was appointed as sole arbitrator. When such arbitral proceedings were going on, the original opponent No.3 i.e. the mother expired. Her legal heirs which included some of the existing parties to the arbitral proceedings and her daughters were therefore brought on record.

(3.) The arbitral proceedings could not be completed within twelve months from the date of constitution of the arbitral tribunal. Therefore the original claimants and original respondents No.1 and 2 applied to the arbitrator for extension of time for completion of the arbitration. Such time was extended by a period of six months. The daughters of deceased opponent No.3 however later on raised an objection before the arbitrator that such extension of time was without their consent and therefore not valid and that it must be held that the mandate of the arbitrator has come to an end. The arbitrator thereupon passed an order on 3.7.2018 holding that his mandate had come to an end. In his opinion the circumstances mentioned in sub-section (4) of Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ('the Act' for short) will come into operation. Accordingly, the mandate of the arbitrator stood terminated with effect from 24.3.2018. He recorded the request of the counsel for the claimants that liberty may be reserved to approach the Court for extension of the mandate of the arbitrator. The learned arbitrator did not find it necessary to grant any such liberty since sub-section (4) of Section 29A of the Act specifically provides that the mandate of the arbitrator shall terminate, if the award is not made within the specified period, unless the Court has, either prior to or after the expiry of the period so specified, extended such period.