AMIT KUMAR GUPTA Vs. DIPAK PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has invoked the provisions of Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for extension of time to conclude the reference by a period as may be deemed fit and appropriate by the Court.

(2.) Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner has submitted that, the parties entered into an agreement dated April 7, 2015. Such agreement had an arbitration clause. Disputes and differences had arisen between the parties. The petitioner had invoked arbitration clause contained in such agreement by a notice dated February 3, 2018 for the resolution of the disputes and differences between the parties. The arbitration clause had allowed the petitioner to nominate its arbitrator. Arbitration clause had also permitted the respondent to nominate his arbitrator. Although the petitioner had invoked its arbitrator, the respondent failed to do so. Consequently, the petitioner approached this Hon'ble Court under Section 11 of the Act of 1996 being A.P. No. 239 of 2018 for constitution of the arbitral tribunal. By an order dated June 29, 2020, the Court had disposed of such application by constituting the arbitral tribunal. The arbitral tribunal had entered into reference on August 17, 2018 which fact the arbitral tribunal had recorded in the minutes of the meeting dated October 9, 2018.

(3.) Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner has submitted that, the time to conclude the arbitral reference had lapsed on September 4, 2020. According to him, the petitioner is not at fault in the arbitral tribunal not succeeding to complete the reference within the initial time stipulated by the Act of 1996. He has submitted that, since the nominee of the petitioner was elevated as a Judge of this Hon'ble Court, the petitioner nominated its arbitrator. Constitution of the arbitral tribunal is complete. However, the arbitral tribunal is not in a position to conclude the reference in view of the expiry of the time period.