Meghalaya High Court
Date Of Decision: 02.07.2025 vs The Chief Engineer (A F) on 2 July, 2025
Author: H.S.Thangkhiew
Bench: H.S.Thangkhiew
2025:MLHC:579
Serial No.08
Regular List
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
AT SHILLONG
MC(Arb.P). No. 1 of 2025 in
Arb. No. 2 of 2021
Date of Decision: 02.07.2025
Shri. Pradyut Kanti Chakrabarty.
...Petitioner
-Versus-
The Chief Engineer (A F)
Shillong Zone, Military Engineers Service,
Elephant Falls Camp,
P.O. Nonglyer, Shillong - 793009,
Meghalaya.
...Respondent
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice H.S.Thangkhiew, Judge
Appearance:
For the Petitioner/Applicant(s) : Mr. S.Chakrawarty, Sr. Adv. with
Mr. E.Laloo, Adv.
For the Respondent(s) : Dr. N.Mozika, DSGI with
Ms. M.Myrchiang, Adv.
i) Whether approved for reporting in Yes/No
Law journals etc:
ii) Whether approved for publication Yes/No
in press:
1
2025:MLHC:579
JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)
1. This misc. application has been filed under Section 29A(4) praying
for extension of the mandate of the appointed arbitrator beyond the
prescribed period, inasmuch as, the same has lapsed on 01-02-2025.
2. Mr. S.Chakrawarty, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Mr. E.Laloo,
learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner submits that this Court vide an
order dated 02-05-2022, passed in Arbitration Petition No. 2 of 2021, was
pleased to appoint an arbitrator as a sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes
between the parties arising out of a contract. He submits that in the course
of the proceedings, the original claimant (L) Pratha Pratim Chakrabarty, the
sole proprietor of the construction company died and he was substituted by
his brother by an order of the Tribunal on 26-12-2024. However, he submits
that as the mandate expired on 01-02-2025 and there being no consent
between the parties for extension of the time, the petitioner has been
compelled to come before this Court with this misc. application.
3. Dr. N.Mozika, learned DSGI assisted by Ms. M.Myrchiang, learned
counsel on behalf of the respondent has submitted that though the brother of
the deceased claimant has been substituted by the Tribunal, the respondent
2
2025:MLHC:579
had questioned the same but however, as the Tribunal has ruled as such, he
has no submissions to make at this stage.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it appears that the
matter has been delayed, inasmuch as, there was no consent given by the
respondent under 29A(3) for extension of the period specified in Sub-
Section 1 of Section 29A.
5. In this view of the matter, as the matter has come before this Court
and in consideration of the matter in its entirety and also taking into account
the order of substitution passed by the Tribunal, it appears that the matter
has been delayed due to the substitution proceedings.
6. Accordingly, the mandate of the sole arbitrator is extended for a
period of 6(six) months from today. It is made clear that any other related
issues be raised before the Tribunal itself.
7. Matter accordingly stands closed and disposed above.
Judge
Signature Not Verified 3
Digitally signed by
SAMANTHA ANNA LIYA
RYNJAH
Date: 2025.07.02 04:58:51 IST