ARINDAM SINHA,J. - (1.) The Court :-The arbitration petition for extension of time has been heard. Petitioner is claimant in the reference and has petitioned for extension of time to conclude it. Mr. Datta, learned senior advocate, Advocate General appeared on behalf of respondent and argued, the petition is misconceived because section 29A in Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 allows a once only approach to Court for the purpose.
(2.) Mr. Datta submitted, there is deliberate intention of Parliament, manifest by omission of the words "from time to time" in section 29A, used in section 28 of repealed Arbitration Act, 1940 regarding extension of time for making the award. Section 29A was inserted by amendment on consideration of report of the Law Commission on Arbitration (Amendment) Bill, 2001. He referred to paragraphs 2.21.1, 2.21.4, 2.21.5, 2.42 and paragraph 27 in the report. He submitted, the recommendation also had the words but Parliament acted otherwise in omitting them. In that context he relied on following judgements on interpretation of statutes: i. Sri Ram Saha vs. State of West Bengal , 2004 11 SCC 497, paragraphs 19 to 24; ii. Abdur Rahim vs. Mahomed Barkat Ali, 55 IndApp 96, page 103 for the passage quoted below: "It is a sound rule of interpretation to take the words of a statute as they stand and to interpret them ordinarily without any reference to the previous state of the law on the subject or the English law upon which it may be founded; but when it is contended that the legislature intended by any particular amendment to make substantial changes in the pre-existing law, it is impossible to arrive at a conclusion without considering what the law was previously to the particular enactment and to see whether the words used in the statute can be taken to effect the change that is suggested as intended. For this reason it becomes necessary to consider how the law stood prior to the enactment of s.92 of the Code of Civil Procedure of 1908." iii. LMJ International Ltd. vs. Swiss Singapore Overseas Enterprises PTE Ltd.,2016 4 CalHN 486, page 4, which carries reference to five judgements of English Courts, Supreme Court and this Court.
(3.) On consequences of a reference becoming abortive after exhausting recourse to provisions in section 29A, his contention being that Court can only extend time once, he submitted, for thereafter resolution of the dispute, Court has to be moved. The litigant can avail of exclusion of time provided under section 14 in Limitation Act, 1963. This exclusion by the section has been expanded to apply to quasi judicial proceedings. He relied on judgments of Supreme Court. i. Srei Infrastructure Finance Ltd. V. Tuff Drilling(P) Ltd. , 2018 11 SCC 470, paragraphs 13, 14 and 26 for arbitration reference being a quasi judicial proceeding; ii. M.P. Steel Corporation V. Commissioner of Central Excise , 2015 7 SCC 58, paragraphs 1 to 3, 11, 21, 34 and 35 for declaration of law expanding application of section 14, Limitation Act, 1963 to beyond Courts; and iii. A.P. Power Coordination Committee V. Lanco Kondapalli Power Ltd. , 2016 3 SCC 468 in following M.P. Steel Corporation (supra). ;