TMI Blog2024 (4) TMI 870X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he present writ petition with costs of Rs. 25,000/-, payable to the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority . The above cost shall be paid within two weeks from today and shall produce receipt for having paid before the Arbitral Tribunal - the question of maintainability of writ petition raised by respondents need no perusal. There is no merit in the writ petition - Petition dismissed. - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. G. PANDIT AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA For the Petitioner : By Sri. S Basavara, Sr. Adv. For Sri Anish Acharya, Adv.) For the Respondents (By Sri E Om Prakash, Sr. Adv. For Sri N Vishwas R. Moneshaa, Adv. For C/R1 2) ORDER S.G. PANDIT J., Petitioner, who is the respondent before the Arbitral Tribunal is before this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India questioning Arbitral Tribunal order dated 16.03.2024 posting the proceedings to 21.03.2024 directing the claimants to keep the witness present and to declare that the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal has terminated on 25.02.2024. 2. Heard the learned senior counsel Sri. S. Basavaraj for Sri. Anish Acharya, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri. E. Om Prakash, learned senior counsel f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uently this Court by order dated 20.12.2023 stayed Arbitral Proceedings also. On 06.03.2024, the said writ petition questioning the NCLT proceedings was allowed. The interim order of stay of the Arbitral Proceedings was in force for a period of 77 days. 6. The petitioner filed three memos dated 27.02.2024, 11.03.2024 and 11.03.2024 before the Arbitral Tribunal stating that the Tribunal has no mandate in view of Section 29A(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, 1996 Act ), hence prayed to terminate the proceedings. Permitting the respondents to file objection to the said memos, proceedings was adjourned to 21.03.2024. Challenging the said proceedings dated 16.03.2024 petitioner is before this Court in the present writ petition. The Arbitral Tribunal subsequently by order dated 21.03.2024 rejected the above three memos holding that the parties completed filing of their pleadings in the Arbitral Proceedings on 20.05.2023 and twelve months would commence from the said date. Further, it observed that period of stay of proceedings in W.P. No. 26977/2023 requires to be excluded. 7. Learned senior counsel Sri. S. Basavaraj would contend that in terms of Section 29A o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ved that in terms of Section 29A of the 1996 Act, one year period to pass award would commence from the said date. Further, learned senior counsel would also submit that the proceedings before the Arbitral Tribunal was stayed by this Court s interim order dated 20.12.2023 in W.P. No. 26977/2023 and the said interim order was operating till 06.03.2024, the date on which the said writ petition was disposed of. The days during which the proceedings were stayed is to be excluded for calculating one year time as provided under Section 29A of the 1996 Act. 10. Further, learned senior counsel referring the impugned order as well as the subsequent order dated 21.03.2024 of the Arbitral Tribunal would submit that no writ petition would be maintainable challenging interim orders of the Arbitral Tribunal and the same could be challenged only in Section 34 proceedings. In support of his contention, he places reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of SBP CO., VS. PATEL ENGINEERING LTD., AND ANOTHER (2005) 8 SCC 618. 11. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the writ petition papers, the only point which falls for our considerati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3. (2) If the award is made within a period of six months from the date the arbitral tribunal enters upon the reference, the arbitral tribunal shall be entitled to receive such amount of additional fees as the parties may agree. (3) The parties may, by consent, extend the period specified in sub-section (1) for making award for a further period not exceeding six months. (4) If the award is not made within the period specified in sub-section (1) or the extended period specified under sub-section (3), the mandate of the arbitrator(s) shall terminate unless the court has, either prior to or after the expiry of the period so specified, extended the period: Provided that while extending the period under this sub-section, if the court finds that the proceedings have been delayed for the reasons attributable to the arbitral tribunal, then, it may order reduction of fees of arbitrator(s) by not exceeding five per cent for each month of such delay: Provided further that where an application under sub-section (5) is pending, the mandate of the arbitrator shall continue till the disposal of the said application: Provided also that the arbitrator shall be given an opportunity of being heard be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has, either prior or after the expiry of the period so specified, extended the period. The extension of period by Court referred to in Section 4 may be on the application of any of the parties for sufficient cause and on such terms and conditions as may be imposed by the Court. (c) In terms of Section 23(4), pleadings before the Arbitral Tribunal would include statement of claim, objections, counterclaim and objections to counterclaim. At this stage, it would be useful to refer Order VI Rule 1 of CPC which defines pleading . In terms of Order VI Rule 1 of CPC, pleading shall mean plaint or written statement. Rejoinder or replication could be filed with the permission of the Court. When the rejoinder or replication is filed with the permission of the Court, then it would form part of pleadings. (d) In the case on hand, admittedly the petitioner s request for extension of time to file surrejoinder was disallowed and the arbitral proceedings was posted for issues. At that stage, the petitioner approached this Court in W.P. No. 10091/2023 which was disposed of by order dated 11.05.2023 and relevant paragraph 5 reads as follows: 5. A perusal of the impugned order passed by the Arbitral ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2024, the date on which the writ petition was allowed. Admittedly, arbitral proceedings was stayed for about 77 days. When there was stay of proceedings before the Arbitral Tribunal, the Arbitral Tribunal could not have proceeded further. It is settled position of law that for calculating period of limitation or for calculating the time granted by the Court to perform certain acts, if there is stay in any other proceedings preventing the authority or the Court proceeding further in the matter, such period shall have to be excluded. In other words, the period occupied by the order of stay made by a Court shall be excluded. In the instant case also, the period during which the proceedings before the Arbitral Tribunal was stayed shall have to be excluded for calculating or determining twelve months period for making award in terms of Section 29A(1) of 1996 Act. (g) Learned senior counsel Sri. S. Basavaraj submitted that the purpose of fixing timeline under Section 29A of 1996 Act is to see that the purpose and object of 1996 Act is achieved and to see that the parties would get speedy justice. From the order sheet of the Arbitral proceedings, it is seen that the petitioner who is resp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
