The Chief Engineer And Administrator And ORS v. M/S R . B. Rajesh, A Partnership Firm

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** CO/26/2025 The Chief Engineer and Administrator and others Vs.

M/s R.B. Rajesh, A Partnership Firm Mr. Debnath Ghosh, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Sunil Kumar Singhania, Mr. V.D. Sivabalan ... for the petitioners Mr. Terence D' Cruz ... for the respondent October 28, 2025 [Manoj] Item No.1 This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, filed by the petitioners, challenging an order dated April 09, 2025, passed by the learned Arbitrator. The petitioners are respondents in an arbitration proceeding.

By the order impugned, the learned Arbitrator condoned the delay in filing the statement of claim. The statement of claim was ultimately communicated on January 22, 2025, i.e. beyond the period of time determined by the learned Arbitrator at the meeting dated November 06, 2024. An application for extension of time in filing the statement of claim was allowed by the learned Arbitrator, with reasons. The claimant had requested for extension of time from December 06, 2024 to January 22, 2025. The learned Arbitrator had fixed December 06, 2024 as the date for filing of the statement of claim. The objection raised by the petitioners to such extension and their request to record termination of the proceeding, in view of the default in filing the statement of claim within the time prescribed by the learned Arbitrator, were not accepted by the learned Arbitrator. The learned Arbitrator recorded that in

the application for extension of time accompanied by a supporting affidavit filed by the claimant, sufficient cause had been shown as to why the statement of claim could not be filed until January 22, 2025.

Mr. Debnath Ghosh, learned senior advocate for the petitioners submits that that the objection filed by the petitioners and the documents annexed to the sur-rejoinder, were not considered by the learned Arbitrator while granting such extension. According to Mr. Ghosh, the plea of illness of the claimant was not genuine, in view of the fact that on December 16, 2024, the claimant had filed a statement of claim in another arbitration proceeding. Had the claimant been undergoing bed rest, the claimant could not have actively participated in the other proceeding.

The objection filed under Section 25 (a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was not considered in its correct perspective. The timeline framed by the learned Arbitrator was mandatory. The claimant was duty bound to file the statement of claim within December 06, 2024.

Accordingly, respondents were to file the counter statement along with the counter claim within January 17, 2025.

Despite clear directions of the learned Arbitrator, the claimant did not submit the statement of claim within the timeline. The ground of illness was totally unfounded. The claimant displayed a lackadaisical approach, negligence and disregard to the directions of the learned Arbitrator. Thus, the learned Arbitrator ought to have terminated the proceeding. On December 04, 2024, the claimant requested for extension of time by an email, but there was nothing on record which would indicate that such extension has been granted by

the learned Arbitrator. The email dated December 04, 2024 could not be regarded as a valid request for extension without a formal acknowledgement and a decision by the learned Arbitrator. Thus, the default in submitting the statement of claim continued to such from December, 2024.

The report dated December 02, 2024, from Kakinada and the lab report dated December 10, 2024, from Rajahmundry were not reliable. The petitioners questioned the relevance and sufficiency of those documents filed by the claimant in support of his illness and the consequential delay caused in meeting the time line set forth by the Sole Arbitrator. Mr. Ghosh urged that the claimant failed to provide supporting documents either from the treating physician or any other medical professional, to substantiate that between December 06, 2024 to January 21, 2025, he was undergoing treatment. The medical certificate was a desperate attempt to cover up the delay, without proper supporting and contemporaneous medical documents. The veracity of the prescription dated December 12, 2024, by which the claimant was adviced a month bed rest, was doubtful. Even on December 16, 2024, the claimant had been signing documents in respect of another arbitration proceeding at Diglipur.

Under such circumstances, Mr. Ghosh prays that the impugned order should be set aside, upon recording termination of the proceeding. Mr. Ghosh relies on the decision of the Delhi High Court in Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. vs. ATV Projects India Ltd and another reported in ILR (2004) II DELHI 26.

Mr.

Terence D'

Cruz, learned advocate for claimant/respondents submits that the case cited by Mr.

Ghosh is distinguishable. In the instant case, neither multiple extension had been granted nor any final warning been issued to the claimant for multiple defaults, to the effect that in the event the statement of claim was not filed within the time prescribed, consequences would follow. He submits that the learned Arbitrator granted the extension in accordance with the provision of Section 25(a) of the said Act. He further submits that the expression 'shall' in Section 23(1) is directory in nature and not mandatory, especially in view of the fact that the Arbitrator has the power to extend the time to file a statement of claim, upon sufficient cause being shown. He prays for dismissal of the application.

Heard the parties.

The power exercised by the High Court under Article 227 of Constitution of India is a general power of superintendence over Courts and Tribunals under its jurisdiction. Here, the arbitral Tribunal is subject to the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court. However, only in very exceptional cases, can an order passed by the learned Arbitrator be interfered with in exercise of power by the supervisory Court. Only if there is patent illegality or perversity in the order, or if the order is passed either in abuse of power or in violation of principle of natural justice, can the High Court interfere.

The extension of time granted by the learned Arbitrator to the claimant upto January 22, 2025, is a discretionary order. The contention of Mr. Ghosh that the medical documents annexed to the sur-rejoinder should have been taken into consideration, as the same would prove that the claimant was participating in an arbitral proceeding in another location

despite being advised rest and that the plea of illness was false and concocted, are not accepted by the Court. The expression 'sufficient cause' used in Section 25 meant such grounds which the learned Arbitrator found be reasonable and acceptable. The learned Arbitrator had the discretion to accept such cause. Here, the claimant had annexed a document to show that the doctor had advised on December 12, 2024 that, he should be taking bed rest. On the other hand, the petitioners have annexed a document to show that on December 16, 2024, the claimant had filed a statement of claim. Such document would neither render the prescription nor the doctor's advice as invalid. The same would not make the factum of illness to be false.

In the application seeking extension of time filed before the learned Arbitrator, the claimant contended that on account of the geographical distance between the place of residence of the claimant at the Andaman and Nicobar Islands and venue of arbitration at Kolkata, the documents which were essential for the preparation of the statement of claim could not be supplied to his learned advocate. As such, on December 04, 2024, an email had been sent, seeking extension of time by a further period of two weeks to file statement of claim. Subsequently, on December 10, 2024, the claimant tested positive for Typhoid. As such, the claimant could not meet his learned Advocate to supply the necessary instructions for preparation of the statement of claim. The learned advocate was in Kolkata. In view of the deteriorating health condition, conference could not be held. Medical documents, including the doctor's prescription and test results have been annexed to the application. It is the specific case of the claimant that he could not travel to Kolkata

for preparation of the statement of claim. Once he felt better, he flew down to Kolkata on January 03, 2025, and the statement of claim was prepared on January 18, 2025. The statement was filed in the morning of January 22, 2025.

Being satisfied with the causes shown, the learned Arbitrator exercised his jurisdiction and discretion and allowed the application for extension of time, thereby, accepting the statement of claim.

Section 25 of the said Act provides that unless, otherwise agreed by the parties, if the claimant failed to communicate his statement of claim in accordance with subsection (1) of Section 23, without showing sufficient cause, the arbitral tribunal shall terminate the proceedings. In this case, the learned Arbitrator considered the application for condonation of the period between December 06, 2024 and January 22, 2025, along with the prayer for extension of time, to be sufficient both on the ground of geographical distance between the place of residence of the claimant in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands and Kolkata, and also on the ground that the claimant had Typhoid and had been advised bed rest.

The learned Arbitrator was also of the opinion that the claimant had communicated his inability to file the statement of claim within the time fixed by the learned Arbitrator and neither any warning nor multiple extensions had been granted to the claimant earlier.

Under such circumstances, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order impugned which has been passed in accordance with the provisions of the statute. The decision of the learned Arbitrator is supported by reasons. Only because a document was signed by the claimant on December 16, 2024,

the issue of illness and medical reports do not become either irrelevant or doubtful.

The learned Arbitrator considered the distinguishing facts of the case in hand with the cited case of the petitioners and held that those decisions did not come to the aid of the petitioners.

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (supra), is distinguishable on facts. There was apparent default on the part of the claimant in filing the statement of claim on multiple occasions. The claimant had not appeared on the date of passing of the order terminating the proceeding. No question of demonstrating sufficient cause for not filing of statement of claim, arose. There was no explanation for the default. In the said case, learned Tribunal found a clear cut default in the non-filing of statement of claim, and as such, the Tribunal had no other option, but to pass an order contemplated under Section 25(a) of the said Act, in the absence of sufficient cause. The Delhi High Court observed that it was mandatory on the part of the learned Arbitrator to terminate the proceeding, in the absence of sufficient cause.

In the case in hand, not only had the claimant sought for extension prior to the expiry of the date within which the statement of claim was to be filed, but an application supported by an affidavit with adequate supporting documents was also filed before learned Arbitrator, seeking condonation of period between December 06, 2024 and January 22, 2025. Under such circumstance, the cited decision does not apply.

This Court does not find any perversity or illegality in the order impugned. Moreover, the proceedings are at the stage of evidence.

Accordingly, CO/26/2025 is dismissed.

There shall be no order as to costs.

Parties to act on the server copy of this order downloaded from the official website of this Court.

( Shampa Sarkar, J. )