JAY PRESTRESSED PRODUCTS LTD v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

1. ITiese are the petitions fdcd by the petitioners under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short the Act) challenging the orders all dated 27.8.2013 passed by the learned Arbitrator, whereby he has terminated his mandate by exercising powers under Section 25(a) ofthe Act.

2. Notices in these petitions were issued on 11.12.2013. O.M.P. 1229/2013 with connected matters page 2 of[4]

3. In view of the fact that the petitioners had been tardy in not filing the statements of claims despite the fact that the Arbitrator had entered upon reference on 19.3.2013, notices were issued subject to the offers of the petitioners to pay costs.

4. I am informed that the costs, as imposed by this Court vide orders dated 11.12.2013, have been paid.

5. Mr. Jagjit Singh, who appears for the respondents, has filed replies to all petitions except to OMP No.1230/2013. In line with his replies, he says that the delay caused by the petitioners is affecting the interests of the respondents. Mi\ Jagjit Singh, however, cannot but concede that there has been no adjudication on merits.

6. Having regard to the fact that there has been no determination on merits by the learned Arbitrator, I am of the view that orders dated 27.8.2013 deserve to be set aside. One of the reasons why I am inclined to set aside the orders of the learned Arbitrator; an aspect which goes to the root of the matter, is that the learned Arbitrator, vide his last communications dated 21.8.2013, had accorded seven (7) days time to the petitioners to file their statements of claims. While there is no dispute that the learned Arbitrator had also issued intimations in that behalf on earlier occasions, including by communications dated 19.3.2013 by which he entered upon the reference; the period of seven (7) days expired only on 28.8.2013, whereas the impugned orders were passed on 27.8.2013.

7. Therefore, having regard to the overall circumstances, as indicated above, the impugned orders are set aside. O.M.I'. 1229/2013 with connected matters page 3 of[4] [

8. Ml". Kapur, learned senior counsel for the petitioners, says that after passing of the impugned orders, the statements of claims were filed with the learned Arbitrator, who returned the same on 3.10.2013.

9. In my view, no grievance can be made of the action taken by the learned Arbitrator in returning the statements of claims; as having terminated the mandate, his approach was correct. However, in view of the fact that the orders dated 27.8.2013 have been set aside, the petitioners are directed to file the statements of claims witliin two weeks from today, failing which the learned Arbitrator would be at liberty to act according to law including be empowered to take recourse to termination of arbitration proceedings.

10. The learned Arbitrator is also requested to fix a timeline so that the proceedings are completed expeditiously, though not later than 30.06.2014.

11. The petitions are disposed of with the aforesaid directions in place;

12. Counsels for the parties agree that they will appear before the learned Arbitrator on 10.1.2014 at 3.00 p m. i RA^iv SifAKlDHER, J DECEMBER 19, 2013 s.pal O.M.P.,1229/2013 with connected matters page 4 of[4]