Serial No. 18 Suppl/Reg Cause List. HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR Arb P 22/2024. M/S SYNERGY THRISLINGTON. …Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. Showkat Ali Khan , Advocate. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA. Through: Mr. T.M. Shamsi, DSGI with Mr. Faizan Ah, Advocate. …Respondent(s) CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE. ORDER 03.01.2025 01. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 29-A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, seeking extension of time for making the award by the Arbitrator. 02. Heard and considered. 03. It appears that disputes had arisen between the petitioner and the respondent. In terms of Arbitration agreement between the parties, Additional Director General (Jammu), who is an authority of the respondent, has appointed Shri Rakesh Kumar Agarwal, A-15 South Extension, New Delhi as the sole arbitrator to decide and make the award regarding the claims/disputes raised by the petitioner-Contractor. This has been done in terms of the communication dated 19.1.2023 of the aforesaid appointing authority. 04. In the present case, it appears that the learned Arbitrator has entered upon the reference on 20th January, 2023, however, the award could not be made by him within the stipulated period of one year from the date of entering upon the reference 05. Sub-Section (4) of Section 29-A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), provides that if the award is not made within the period specified in sub-section (1) or the extended period specified under sub-section (3), the mandate of the Arbitrator shall terminate, unless the Court has, either prior to or after the expiry of the period so specified, extended the period. 06. It seems that in the instant case, the period for making the award was extended by mutual consent of the parties for six months, but the said consent was granted on 28.02.2024, after expiry of specified period of one year from the date of entering upon the reference. The contention of the respondent is that this could not have been done because the mandate of the arbitrator had already terminated on 19.01.2023 and extension could have been granted only by the Court and not by the parties. 07. Having regard to the legal position that the Court is vested with power to extend the period for making the award, prior to or after the expiry of the period specified under sub-section (1) of Section 29-A of the Act, it may not be necessary to go into the question whether the parties could have extended the period for making the award by mutual consent after the expiry of initial period of one year. 08. The report submitted by the learned Arbitrator pursuant to order dated 06.12.2024 indicates that delay in completing arbitration proceedings has occurred not due to the reasons attributable to the learned Arbitrator, but the same has occurred because the parties consumed a lot of time in filing the statement of claims/ statement of defense and admission denial statements. The details in this regard are clearly indicated in the report of the learned Arbitrator. 09. In view of the above and keeping in view the fact that the parties have already invested their energy and time in the proceedings before the Arbitral Tribunal, it would be in the interests of both the parties if the arbitration proceedings are allowed to culminate. 10. Accordingly, the application is allowed and the time for making the award is extended w.e.f. 19.01.2024 to 28.02.2025. 11. Disposed of. 12. A copy of this order be sent to the learned Arbitrator. (Sanjay Dhar) Judge SRINAGAR 03.01.2025 Showkat Khan Showkat Hassan Khan I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 04.01.2025 11:41