Arindam Sinha, J. - (1.) Mr.Chowdhury, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and submits, as on 20th August, 2018, the Arbitrator had become de jure unable to perform his functions and as such there should be an order declaring termination of mandate. He submits, the Arbitrator thereafter went on to purportedly make and publish award dated 4th October, 2018. He demonstrates from the award, case was received by the Council under Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 on 9th November, 2016. Failure of conciliation was informed by letter dated 21st August, 2017. This letter not only reported that but was also the letter, by which there was initiation of arbitration process as per the Act of 2006 and, his client was asked to submit statement of facts. Thus this letter dated 21st August, 2017 is the letter for commencement of arbitration under section 21, in Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, as well as for the Tribunal being informed of its appointment and it entering upon the reference. A year from then expired on 20th August, 2018, within which time the Tribunal did not conclude the proceedings by publishing award. There was no extension of time for the Tribunal to conclude the reference. These facts are undisputed.
(2.) He relies on judgment of Supreme Court in NBCC Ltd. V. J.G.Engineering Private Limited, 2010 2 SCC 385, to paragraphs 10, 27 and 28. He submits, where parties had not mutually extended time in the reference and a party had thereafter approached for termination on expiry of last extended time, Supreme Court declared that it can be construed, parties had not agreed to extension of the mandate and as such it was automatically terminated.
(3.) Next he relies on a Division Bench judgment of Delhi High Court in Surinder Pal Singh Vs. HPCL, 2006 92 DRJ 537, paragraph 16 to submit, view expressed was, where in an arbitration a party intends to have issue regarding termination of mandate resolved, he has to apply to competent Court under sub-sections (1) and (2) in section 14 of the 1996 Act. Similar view was expressed by a Division Bench of Gauhati High Court in State of Arunachal Pradesh Vs. Subhash Projects and Marketing Ltd., 2006 3 GauLR 939.;