K C REDDY Vs. HINDUSTAN CABLES LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in both the revision petitions is common and respondents are also common. Therefore, both the revision petitions are disposed of by a common order. The petitioner herein is referred as a Contractor and Respondent No. 1 herein is referred as a Company.

(2.) It appears from the record that the Company had entrusted the work of construction of certain buildings to the Contractor in the year 1982-83. Three agreements were executed between the parties and the Contractor started constructions of the buildings and completed by 1987. As stated earlier three agreements were executed between the parties and in all the three agreements there was a covenant that in case of dispute between the parties, the matter be settled by an Arbitrator who will be appointed by Respondent No. 1 herein as per Clause 52 of the General Conditions of Contract. After completion of work, the Company refused to make payment. Therefore, a dispute arose between the Contractor and the Company. The Contractor moved the Company for appointment of an Arbitrator. Accordingly, the Company appointed Respondent No.3 herein as the sole Arbitrator. The Arbitrator entered reference on 22-3-1992. The time for completion of arbitration reference was four months and there was also a covenant in the contract that the time for completion of reference can be extended by mutual consent, as we find under Section 28 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940. It further appears from the record that in all 22 sittings were held between 22nd April, 1992 to 7th March, 1993.

(3.) On 7th March, 1993, the entire recording of evidence and arguments of both parties were over. Only the work of passing an award was left out. Therefore the sole Arbitrator asked both the parties to extend the time by 30th April, 1993, as the time was not 'sufficient for him to pass an award before 31st March, 1993. The Contractor herein gave a consent letter agreeing to extend the time for passing the award upto 30th April, 1993; whereas the Company stated that they would send the consent letter from the Head Office. But instead of keeping the said promise, they filed an application before the IV Assistant District Judge, Alipore, under Section 28 of the Arbitration Act for extention of time. The Court granted the relief on 22nd March, 1993, extending the time to complete the arbitration work upto 30th April, 1993. The said order was sent to the Arbitrator by Courier. The said letter was dated 23-3-1993 which was addressed by an advocate. Finally, the award was passed on 28-4-1997. It further appears from the record that the Company had filed a petition as stated earlier in the Court of IV Assistant District Judge, Alipore, in miscellaneous petition No. 12/93. The Interim Order was passed by the IV Assistant District Judge, Alipore extending the time upto 30th April, 1993. It was an ex parte order and no notice was issued to the Contractor before the Interim Order was passed.