M/s. Cargo Carrier vs Haryana State Co-op. Supply and Marketing Federation (HAFED) and Another

M. Jeyapaul, J.—M/s. Cargo Carrier, the respondent before the arbitrator aggrieved by the extension of time granted by Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Panchkula vide order dated 27.3.2010 has preferred the present revision. Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would submit referring to the order passed by Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Chandigarh vide order dated 8.1.2003 that the Court was pleased to reject the plea of extension of time for announcement of the arbitration award. It is further submitted that an application was filed by the applicant on 21.5.2003 before the Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Panchkula seeking extension of time for announcement of arbitration award by 4 months. The Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Panchkula having observed that there was no mala fide intention on the part of the applicant to delay the proceedings deliberately, chose to extend the time by 4 months for announcing the arbitration award by the arbitrator.

Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would submit that the Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Panchkula failed to take note of the fact that the Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Chandigarh chose to reject the plea of the applicant seeking extension of time vide its order dated 8.1.2003. In view of the above, the impugned order passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) Panchkula does not stand to reason.

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/applicant would submit that only in the application filed under Order 11 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 praying for removal of the arbitrator on certain grounds, a prayer was made in the reply filed by the applicant for extension of time, but the same was rejected by the Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Chandigarh. As no order was passed by the competent authority rejecting the plea for extension on a separate application filed by the applicant there was no illegality in the order passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Panchkula entertaining the subsequent application filed by the respondent/applicant seeking extension of time. He would also submit that the final award had already been announced by the arbitrator.

As rightly pointed out by learned counsel appearing for the respondents, extension of time eventually sought for by the respondents herein in the application filed by the revision petitioner u/s 11 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 had been rejected. Such a rejection does not disentitle the applicant to move a separate application before the competent Court setting out the facts and circumstances warranting extension of time for announcing the award.

It is found that the award itself has already been announced by the arbitrator. Therefore, the present revision itself has become infructuous. Even otherwise, the applicant is entitled to approach the competent Court seeking extension of time setting out different facts and circumstances. There is no bar for filing an application for extension of time for announcing the arbitration award. In view of the above, I find that there is no merit in the revision petition and, therefore, it stands dismissed.