Biswanath Somadder, J. - (1.) Let the affidavit of service filed in Court today be taken on record. This application arises upon issuance of a letter by an Arbitrator on 28th July, 2014, addressed to the respective advocates -on -records of the parties. It appears that the Arbitrator was appointed by an order of the Court dated 13th June, 2014, passed in AP No. 381 of 2011. Perusing the said letter dated 28th July, 2014, it appears that the Arbitrator has intimated the parties with regard to his inability to conclude the arbitration proceedings within eight weeks of completion of pleadings, in terms of the order dated 13th June, 2014, due to his teaching commitments during the months of August and September, 2014. It further appears that the Arbitrator also asked Mr. S. Kakrania (the advocate -on -record of Mr. Ratnanko Banerji's client) as to whether the parties were agreeable to hold sittings after mid October, 2014. The Arbitrator in his letter has thereafter stated that Mr. Kakrania's firm objected to the extension of time to file pleadings being granted by the Arbitrator. In view of the inability of the parties to consent to enlargement of time, the Arbitrator recorded his inability to carry out the assignment within the stipulated period and requested the parties to take appropriate steps for appointment of some other person as the Arbitrator. It is in this factual backdrop that the petitioner, Mahesh Kumar Kejriwal, has approached this Court by filing the present application.
(2.) Sec. 14 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act provides for failure or impossibility on the part of the Arbitrator to act. In the facts of the instant case, it is noticed that the Arbitrator has not been able to perform his functions due to the timeframe stipulated by the Court which appointed him on 13th June, 2014, while allowing an application under Sec. 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. This Court is of the view that there is no imperative necessity for a Court - while adjudicating and deciding upon an issue regarding appointment of Arbitrator in an application under Sec. 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act - to fix a timeframe for the purpose of filing of statement of claim and counter statement of claim/counter claim in such an application. However, in the present matter, the Arbitrator, being bound by the direction given by the Court as contained in the order dated 13th June, 2014, quite rightly wrote the letter dated 28th July, 2014. The failure or impossibility on the part of the Arbitrator to act - in the facts of the instant case - has arisen only due to the timeframe provided by the Court in its order dated 13th June, 2014, at the time of disposing of the Sec. 11 application. At this juncture, it may also be observed that since it was at the instance of Mr. Ratnanko Banerji's client that the order was passed on 13th June, 2014, it was not open for his Advocate -on -Record to have issued the letter dated 25th July, 2014, objecting to any extension of time to file pleadings for such reasons as stated in the Arbitrator's letter dated 28th July, 2014.
(3.) In such circumstances, this application is disposed of with a direction upon the Arbitrator to resume his mandate and conclude the arbitration proceedings as expeditiously as possible. Since this application is being disposed of without calling for affidavits, allegations, if any, made in the instant petition shall be deemed to have been not admitted by the respondents.;