Civil Revision No. 6179 of 2008 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 6179 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: 25.3.2010 M/s Khara Construction Company .. Petitioner v. Punjab State and another .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. P. S. Rana, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Navdeep Sukhna, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab. ... Rajesh Bindal J. Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 9.8.2008, passed by the learned court below, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 28 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (for short, `the Act') for extension of time for completion of arbitration proceedings, was rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in terms of Section 28 of the Act, such an application could be filed at any time and the court may, if it thinks fit, whether the time for making the award had expired or not and whether the award has been made or not, enlarge from time to time, the time for making the award. In the present case, the application having been made and in the statement made before the court below; the Executive Engineer having conceded to the extension of time and the petitioner having given his consent for extension of time even before the Arbitrator, there was no reason for rejection of the prayer made by the petitioner. He further submitted that ever since the time granted earlier for completion of proceedings expired, the petitioner was pursuing his remedy for change of Arbitrator and further even the Arbitrator was in the process of seeking opinion from the Legal Remembrancer regarding continuation of proceedings. In the facts and circumstances of the case, in view of the continuation of proceedings and the communication of rejection to the petitioner only vide letter dated 8.10.2003, it cannot be said that there was any lapse on the part of the petitioner in pursuing the remedy. Civil Revision No. 6179 of 2008 [2] On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that initially the extended time for completion of arbitration proceedings expired on 7.1.1994 and thereafter the petitioner having not approached any authority for extension of time, the petition filed before the court below on 18.11.2003, nearly 10 years after the expiry of the time earlier granted, was certainly liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches only. He further submitted that the stand of the State even before the Arbitrator was that the respondents were not agreeing for extension of time, as is even noticed in letter dated 8.10.2003 (Annexure P.5) and further statement of the Executive Engineer before the court below cannot be read to mean that he consented for extension of time, once there was conscious decision for not agreeing to any extension. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any merit in the present petition. As is evident from the record, on account of some alleged dispute between the parties, sole arbitrator was appointed on 18.12.1992. As the arbitration proceedings could not be concluded within the permissible time, extension was granted by the court vide order dated 8.9.1993 till 7.1.1994. The Arbitrator still having not pronounced the award, the petitioner moved application before the court below for removal of the Arbitrator, which was dismissed on 18.12.1995. Thereafter, the record shows that some dates were fixed before the Arbitrator, but those were all proceedings before a person, who had ceased to be an Arbitrator, for the reason that after 7.1.1994, when the earlier extension granted by the court expired, the petitioner did not take any step for seeking any further extension, rather, even after the dismissal of the application filed before the court for removal of the Arbitrator, the petitioner moved an application before the Chief Engineer on 13.10.1998 for removal of the Arbitrator. Further, as is evident from a communication from the Arbitrator-cum-Superintending Engineer to the petitioner dated 8.10.2003 that the Executive Engineer, the opposite party in the arbitration proceedings, vide its communication dated 25.9.2003 had not consented to extend the time for arbitration. Once there was no consent by both the parties, the time could be extended by the court but for some valid reason. However, even the material before the court was not sufficient to justify any further extension of time for conclusion of arbitration proceedings, considering the delay and laches, the application for extension having been made almost 10 years after the earlier period had expired. Just one line said in the cross-examination by the Executive Engineer before the court cannot be read to mean that he had consented to extension of time once earlier such a consent had been refused. Civil Revision No. 6179 of 2008 [3] For the reasons mentioned above, I do not find any merit in the present petition. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 25.3.2010 mk