Multi State Cooperative Land Development Bank Ltd. And ANR v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.257 of 2016 In REQ. CASE 4 of 2013 ======================================================

1. Multi State Cooperative Land Development Bank Limited, BiharJharkhand, Budh Marg, Patna through its Managing Director (earlier known as Bihar Rajya Sahkari Bhumi Vikas Bank Simit, Bihar-Jharkhand)

2. Managing Director, Multi State Cooperative Land Development Bank Limited, Bihar-Jharkhand, Budh Marg, Patna.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. The Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna.

3. Principal Secretary, Department of Co-operative, Government of Bihar, Patna.

4. The Registrar, Co-operative Societies, New Secretariat, Government of Bihar, Patna.

5. Union of India through Central Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Ministry of Agriculture, Department of Agriculture & Cooperation, Government of India.

.... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : M/S. Y. V. Giri(Sr.Adv.) Rajesh Prasad Choudhary & Rakesh Ranjan For the State : Mr. A.K.Sinha(G.A.9) For the Union : Mr. Anshuman Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH ORAL ORDER 27-01-2016 By this application, virtually the prayer is now to grant ex-post facto sanction for the extended period in which arbitral Award has been passed. It may be noted that by this Court's order passed in Request Case No.4/2013, being order dated 7-3-2014, time was fixed for the Arbitrator to give Award. That was extended further. Now, the Award has been passed, though technically beyond time.

Patna High Court MJC No.257 of 2016 (2) dt.27-01-2016 2/2

2. Mr. Y. V. Giri, learned senior counsel for the petitioners points out that after the hearing was concluded in the arbitral proceeding well within time fixed by the Court, the Arbitrator took time to frame the Award. There was a delay of about two weeks in framing and delivering the Award. The State is aware of the facts and does not challenge the same. . 3. Considering the aforesaid, I extend the time of the arbitral proceeding by three weeks from the date originally granted by the Court, which was extended on 23rd December, 2015, by another three weeks. Parties have no objection.

4. Accordingly, this application is allowed.

(Navaniti Prasad Singh, J) B.K.Roy/- U