CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

TB Hydro Flovel Valves Private Ltd vs Beas Valley Power Corporation Ltd

High Court Of Himachal Pradesh · Decided on 25 July 2023 · Citation: (2023) 07 SHI CK 0090

HON’BLE JUDGES
Sandeep Sharma, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 23(4), 29A(1), 29A(3), 29A(4)
CASE NUMBER
Arbitration Case No.614 Of 2023
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

5 paragraphs · 341 words

Sandeep Sharma, J

1.

By way of instant petition filed under Section 29 A (4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short “the Act”), prayer has been made by the applicant/claimant for extension of time for making the arbitral award. Learned counsel for the respondent has no objection in case very innocuous prayer made in the instant application for extension of time is allowed.

2.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record, this Court finds that pursuant to order dated 10.9.2021, passed by this Court in Arbitration Case No. 56 of 2021, Mr. Justice Surinder Singh Thakur, Retired Judge was appointed as an Arbitrator, who immediately after passing the order, though entered into reference, but was unable to conclude the arbitration proceedings with the stipulated time for the reasons, which were beyond his control.

3.

As per Section 29 A (1) of the Act, Arbitral Tribunal is required to pass an award within 12 months from the date of completion of proceedings under Section (4) of Section 23. Though in the case at hand, pleadings in terms of Sub-Section (3) of Section 29A of the Act, stand completed, but yet learned Arbitrator has not been able to pass the award. Prior to making the application at hand, learned Arbitrator had extended the time on the joint request of the parties, but now since 12 months period has expired and in case time is not extended by this Court, mandate of learned Arbitrator shall be terminated, petitioner has approached this Court for extension of time. Provisions contained under Section 29 (a) (4) empowers the court to extend the time if it has reason to believe that Arbitrator was unable to make the award within the stipulated period.

4.

Having taken note of the explanation rendered in the application for extension of time, this Court deems it fit to extend the time by six months, enabling the learned Arbitrator to make the award. Ordered accordingly. In the aforesaid terms, present petition is disposed of .