M/S Ajay M/C Tools vs. Central Public Works Department
Held
The Court held that the Arbitral Tribunal was entitled to an extension of time for passing the award. The reasoning was based on the facts presented, which included the Arbitrator's medical condition causing an inability to work and the pending submission of a GST calculation sheet by the claimant. These were considered sufficient grounds for seeking an extension under Section 29-A(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Court granted six weeks' time for passing the final award from the date of the order. The petition was disposed of in terms of this extension.
Facts
The petitioner, M/s. Ajay M/C Tools, filed a petition under Section 29-A(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking an extension of time for the Arbitral Tribunal to pass an award. The Arbitral Tribunal, in its order dated 14.12.2025, noted that the award could not be finalized due to two reasons. Firstly, the Arbitrator was suffering from an eye ailment requiring rest. Secondly, the claimant had not filed a model calculation sheet regarding the payment of GST, as directed by the Tribunal. The time for passing the award was set to expire on the date of the order. The Tribunal advised the parties to file a petition before the High Court for extension of time.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Arbitral Tribunal is entitled to an extension of time for passing an award under Section 29-A(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, due to the Arbitrator's medical condition and the pending filing of a GST calculation sheet by the claimant? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the Arbitral Tribunal's inability to pass the award was due to valid reasons, namely the Arbitrator's medical condition and the need for the claimant to file a GST calculation sheet. These circumstances necessitated seeking an extension of time as provided under Section 29-A(4) of the Act. Respondent's Arguments: The respondent did not record any specific arguments against the extension of time in the judgment. The judgment indicates that the parties were advised by the Arbitrator to approach the High Court for extension.
Sections Cited
Section 29-A(4)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
2026:HHC:6187
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA
Arb. Case No. 8/2026
Decided on: 06.03.2026
M/s. Ajay M/C Tools
…..Petitioner
Versus
Central Public Works Department ….Respondent ______________________________________________________________ Coram:
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Neel Kamal Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Bharat Bhushan, Senior Panel
Counsel.
Romesh Verma, Judge (oral)
The present petition under Section 29-A (4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has been filed by the petitioner seeking extension of time for passing of the award by the learned Arbitral Tribunal. 2
Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to Annexure A-5 order dated 14.12.2025, whereby the learned Arbitrator has ordered as follows:- “This case file was for final order today, but the order could not be ready due to two reasons. Ist reason is that I am having eye ailment for the last one month for which I
1W
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Himachal Pradesh High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.