- (1.) In this first appeal, order dated 28.02.2011 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Panipat is under challenge. By the said order, learned Additional District Judge has allowed application filed by respondent No. 1-contractor under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short, the 'Act') and has thereby set aside award dated 22.11.2007 passed by respondent No. 2 Arbitrator. Dispute between appellants (Marketing Board) and respondent No. 1 contractor was referred to respondent No. 2 as Arbitrator by Chief Administrator of the Marketing Board pursuant to direction of the Court under Section 11 of the Act vide order dated 23.05.2005. By the said order, Chief Administrator of the Marketing Board was directed to appoint Arbitrator within two months and the Arbitrator was directed to give speaking award within six months after entering upon the reference or within such time as extended with consent of the parties. Parties by mutual consent extended the time for making award till 15.11.2006 by making statements before the Arbitrator. Thereafter there is no consent regarding extension of time nor regarding denial of consent by either party. The arbitrator gave the award on 22.11.2007 i.e. after the expiry of the extended period.
(2.) Respondent No. 1-contractor challenged the said award by filing petition under Section 34 of the Act inter alia on the ground that mandate of the Arbitrator terminated on expiry of the extended period for making the award and therefore, the award made thereafter is invalid.
(3.) Appellants herein repudiated the aforesaid claim of the contractor. Learned trial Court has allowed the petition filed by the contractor on the aforesaid ground. Feeling aggrieved, instant appeal has been preferred. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.;