Delhi High Court Extends The Arbitration Period Despite Significant Delays, Considering The Advanced Stage Of Proceedings.

The bench of Sachin Datta while dealing with an application under Section 29A(4) of the A&C Act, extended the mandate of the arbitral tribunal despite acknowledging the substantial delay and petitioner's laxity by absorbing that the proceedings were at advanced stage and if the mandate is not extended, the entire time consumed would be rendered futile.

Facts

The petitioner filed a Section 29A(4) petition seeking an extension for completing arbitration proceedings.

The arbitration, initiated in July 2010, led to an award in 2013, later set aside, with multiple arbitrators appointed due to challenges.

In 2019, the arbitrator stated the mutually extended six-month period had expired, necessitating an extension. In 2021, the petitioner sought an extension until June 2022, granted with the respondent's consent. Procedural orders highlighted the respondent's non-participation and delays.

In 2022, the arbitrator declared no further proceedings after June 2022 without a court-ordered extension. The petitioner, realizing the lapse, filed the current petition in April 2023, citing personal reasons for the delay.

Submissions

The petitioner made the following submissions:

• Argued Section 29A didn't retroactively apply, citing pre-2015 commencement of arbitration.
• Submitted that proceedings were at the stage of recording claimant's evidence.
• Explained the delay, attributing it to settlement talks, health-related travel, and oversight in filing for an extension.

The respondent made the following counter-submissions:

• Opposed further extensions, noting substantial delays and a pending dispute since 2010.
• Highlighted the petitioner's prolonged periods for filing Section 29A petitions.
• Referred to a Bombay High Court judgment emphasizing the undesirability of extending mandates in protracted proceedings.

Court's Analysis and Conclusion:

The court rejected the petitioner's argument, asserting Section 29A's applicability post-2015.

The Court extended the time period for the completion of arbitral proceedings, despite observing that there was inordinate delay in the completion of arbitral proceedings, on the ground that the proceedings, though protracted, has reached advance stage.

The court urged the arbitrator to conclude within the extended timeframe, with the order refraining from expressing opinions on case merits.

Case Title: Iqbal Singh v. Naresh Kumar, OMP(MISC.) 15 of 2023

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1223

Date: 01.12.2023

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Aditya Bakshi, Mr. Utsav Garg and Mr. Pushkar Khanna, Advs.

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. Anurag Ojha, Mr. Gautam Barnwal, Advs

Click Here To Read/Download Order