Delhi High Court Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. vs Atv Projects India Ltd. And Anr. on 9 July, 2004 Equivalent citations: 2004(2)ARBLR432(DELHI), [2005]124COMPCAS45(DELHI), 112(2004)DLT701, 2004(75)DRJ630 JUDGMENT Badar Durrez Ahmed, J. 1. This petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against an order dated 02.06.2003 passed by the respondent no.2 in his capacity as the sole arbitrator in Arbitration Case No.319/2002 entitled A.T.V. Project India Ltd v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. The petitioner (Indian Oil Corporation Ltd) (hereinafter referred to as ''IOCL'') and the respondent No.1 (ATV Project India Ltd) (hereinafter referred to as 'ATV') had entered into a contract on 03.01.1996 under which ATV has been awarded the turnkey project in respect of the Amine Regeneration Unit for the Panipat Refinery Project of IOCL. Certain disputes had arisen between the IOCL and ATV and the latter filed a petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act') for appointment of an arbitrator for adjudicating the said disputes. On agreement of the parties, by an order dated 07.05.2002, the Civil Judge (Senior Division) Panipat, Haryana, appointed the respondent No.2 as the sole arbitrator. 2. The respondent No.2, on being informed of his appointment as the arbitrator, registered the reference as Arbitration Case No.319/2002 and issued a notice dated 02.07.2002 notifying the parties that the first hearing would take place on 01.08.2002 at New Delhi and directed the claimant (ATV) to file its statement of claim with supporting documents on or before the said date. 3. ATV did not file its statement of claim on or before 01.08.2002 and, instead, its counsel sought more time for filing of the statement of claim before the respondent No.2, who, by the order dated 01.08.2002, permitted ATV to file its claim on or before 21.08.2002. The next date of hearing was fixed for 13.09.2002. ATV did not file the statement of claim on or before 21.08.2002 and the counsel for ATV made an oral request to the respondent No.2 for a further period of four weeks to file the statement of claim and also made a request for an adjournment in the matter so that it may file its statement of claim. The respondent No.2 acceded to this oral request and the case was fixed for 16.12.2002 for further directions. 4. On 16.12.2002, when the parties appeared before the respondent No.2, the counsel for ATV again sought further time for filing the statement of claim. The respondent No.2 passed, inter alia, the following directions: ''The statement of claim has not been filed by ATV despite sufficient time having been granted. Counsel for ATV seeks some more time for filing the statement of claim. Counsel for IOCL objects to grant of more time. However, in interest of justice, I grant now last opportunity for filing the statement of claim with supporting documents by ATV on or before 15th January, 2003 with copies to the opposite counsel. IOCL shall file statement of defense and counter statement of claims with supporting documents, if any, within four weeks of receipt of aforesaid copies and supply copies to the opposite party. In case ATV fails to file the statement of claim as mentioned above, IOCL can file its statement of claim along with supporting documents on or before 11th February, 2003 with copies to the opposite counsel.'' The matter was adjourned to 12.03.2003. 5. Despite the clear and peremptory order passed by the respondent No.2 giving ATV a last opportunity for filing the statement of claim on or before 15.01.2003, ATV failed to do so. In fact, on 12.03.2003, nobody appeared on behalf of ATV before the respondent No.2. Faced with such a situation, the respondent No.2 passed the following order: ''A last opportunity was given to ATV for filing statement of claim on or before 15th January, 2003. No such statement of claim has been filed. Today no one has even appeared on behalf of ATV. ATV has also not complied with the directions for deposit of the arbitration fee and expenses. In view of the above, I have now no option but to hold that the ATV has lost its right to file statement of claim. Counsel for the IOCL states that he has already prepared statement of claim along with supporting documents and would be filing the same on or before 31st March, 2003. I give final opportunity to IOCL for filing the statement of claim along with supporting documents on or before 31st March, 2003 with copies to the opposite party. IOCL shall now pay the fee of arbitration and expenses on its claim on or before 31st March 2003. ATV shall file statement of defense to the statement of claim of IOCL within three weeks of receipt of the copies by it and send copies to the opposite party. Rejoinder, if any, confined to additional facts coming out in the statement of defense sha