M/S GPT-RAHEE (JV)  Vs M/S IRCON INTERNATIONAL LTD.

O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 7/2021 Page 1 of 3 $~4 (Original Side)
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 7/2021 & I.A. 194/2021
M/S GPT -RAHEE (JV) ….. Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ranjit Prakash , Mr.
Anshuman Pande , Ms. Gaurika
Mohan & Ms. Vishalakshi
Singh
versus

M/S IRCON INTERNATIONAL LTD. ….. Respondent
Through: Mr. Suman K Doval, Adv.

CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR

% 07.01.2021 O R D E R
(Video-Conferencing)

1. This is an application under S ection

29A(4) of the Arbitratio n &
Conciliation Act , 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the “1996 Act”). The
arbitration, to which the application relates, and pertaining to the
disputes between the parties to this application, was being conducted
by Hon’ble Mr . Justice A. K. Sikri, an em inent retired Judge of the
Supreme Court and a former Judge of this court.
2. The learned Arbitrator passed his award, in the arbitral
proceedings , on 19th December , 2020 . Section 33 (1)(a) allows the
parties, to any arbitral proceedings, to move an applic ation for
correction , before the learned arbitral tribunal , within 30 days of the
receipt of the arbitral award. Section 33(2) grants 30 days’ time to the
2021:DHC:63
O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 7/2021 Page 2 of 3 arbitral tribunal to consider the request made under Section 3 3(1)(a)
and to pass orde rs there of. The petitioner received the arbitral award,
passed by the learned sole A rbitrator , on 19th December , 2020. An
application under Section 33(1)(a), was preferred by the petitioner on
28th December , 2020, admittedly within the time available unde r
Section 33(1)(a). Unfortunately, before the application could be
decided and , even before the expiry of 30 days available under section
33 (2) for the learned Arbitrator to decide the application, the m andate
of the learned Arbitrator expired on 1st
January , 2021.
3. It is in these circumstances that the present application has been
preferred , by the claimant before the learned Arbitrator , to grant
extension of time under Section 29A(4) & (5) of the 1996 Act so that
the learned Arbitrator could decide the application filed by the
petitioner under S ection 33(1)(a).

4. Mr. Suman Doval, learned counsel for the respondent, in all
fairness, does not oppose the request, though he submits that the issue
of whether extension of time , for deciding an application under
Section 33(1)(a), can be granted under S ection 29A(4) and (5) of the
1996 Act, may require adjudication in an appropriate case.

5. Prima facie , in my view , Section 29A(4) and (5) would also
apply to grant of extension of ti me, i n order to enable an arbitral
tribunal to decide an application under Section 3 3(1)(a), as otherwise ,
in a case such as the present, the S ection 3 3(1)(a) applicant, despite
2021:DHC:63
O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 7/2021 Page 3 of 3 having preferred the application before the learned Arbitrator in time,
would be divested of the right to have the application decided.

6. In any event , as Mr. Suman Doval fairly agrees to extension of
time for the learned A rbitrator to decide the application of the
petitioner under Section 33 (1)(a), the time available with the l earned
Arbitrator stands extended by a period of two months, with effect from
1st
January , 2021.
7. This petition stands allowed accordingly .

C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
JANUARY 7, 2021 /ss
2021:DHC:63