1 Serial No.08 Regular List HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA AT SHILLONG MC(Arb.P). No. 1 of 2025 in Arb. No. 2 of 2021 Date of Decision: 02.07.2025 Shri. Pradyut Kanti Chakrabarty. …Petitioner -Versus- The Chief Engineer (A F) Shillong Zone, Military Engineers Service, Elephant Falls Camp, P.O. Nonglyer, Shillong – 793009, Meghalaya. …Respondent Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice H.S.Thangkhiew, Judge Appearance: For the Petitioner/Applicant(s) : Mr. S.Chakrawarty, Sr. Adv. with Mr. E.Laloo, Adv. For the Respondent(s) : Dr. N.Mozika, DSGI with Ms. M.Myrchiang, Adv. i) Whether approved for reporting in Yes/No Law journals etc: ii) Whether approved for publication Yes/No in press: 2025:MLHC:579 2 JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL) 1. This misc. application has been filed under Section 29A(4) praying for extension of the mandate of the appointed arbitrator beyond the prescribed period, inasmuch as, the same has lapsed on 01-02-2025. 2. Mr. S.Chakrawarty, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Mr. E.Laloo, learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner submits that this Court vide an order dated 02-05-2022, passed in Arbitration Petition No. 2 of 2021, was pleased to appoint an arbitrator as a sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties arising out of a contract. He submits that in the course of the proceedings, the original claimant (L) Pratha Pratim Chakrabarty, the sole proprietor of the construction company died and he was substituted by his brother by an order of the Tribunal on 26-12-2024. However, he submits that as the mandate expired on 01-02-2025 and there being no consent between the parties for extension of the time, the petitioner has been compelled to come before this Court with this misc. application. 3. Dr. N.Mozika, learned DSGI assisted by Ms. M.Myrchiang, learned counsel on behalf of the respondent has submitted that though the brother of the deceased claimant has been substituted by the Tribunal, the respondent 2025:MLHC:579 3 had questioned the same but however, as the Tribunal has ruled as such, he has no submissions to make at this stage. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it appears that the matter has been delayed, inasmuch as, there was no consent given by the respondent under 29A(3) for extension of the period specified in Sub- Section 1 of Section 29A. 5. In this view of the matter, as the matter has come before this Court and in consideration of the matter in its entirety and also taking into account the order of substitution passed by the Tribunal, it appears that the matter has been delayed due to the substitution proceedings. 6. Accordingly, the mandate of the sole arbitrator is extended for a period of 6(six) months from today. It is made clear that any other related issues be raised before the Tribunal itself. 7. Matter accordingly stands closed and disposed above. Judge 2025:MLHC:579 Digitally signed by SAMANTHA ANNA LIYA RYNJAH Date: 2025.07.02 04:58:51 IST