Siddhast Intellectual Property Innovations Pvt Ltd v. Controller General Of Patents Designs And Trademark (Cgpdtm) And ANR

$~7 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + SIDDHAST INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INNOVATIONS PVT LTD .....Petitioner Through:

Ms. Sarita Mehta and Mr. Abhishek Chandra, Advocates.

versus CONTROLLER GENERAL OF PATENTS DESIGNS AND TRADEMARK (CGPDTM) AND ANR .....Respondents Through:

Mr. Sumit Nagpal, SPC with Ms.

Aastha Sood, Advocates for R-1.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH

O R D E R

% 21.04.2025 1.

This petition is preferred on behalf of the Petitioner under Section 29A (1), (3) and (5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ('1996 Act') seeking extension of mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal by a period of 6 months.

2.

Disputes having arisen between the parties in relation to a contract dated 24.05.2013 pertaining to providing access to patent database and development of customized Integrated Search Platform (ISP), Petitioner filed a petition under Section 11(6) of the 1996 Act being Arb. P. 45/2021, which was allowed by the Court on 11.01.2021 and Sole Arbitrator was appointed to adjudicate the disputes between the parties. Arbitration proceedings commenced and pleadings were completed by the parties. On The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

an application for impleadment filed by Respondent No. 1, learned Arbitrator impleaded Questel SAS on 03.06.2022. Proceedings were to be completed within 12 months from 31.05.2021 but on account of Pandemic COVID-19, they were deferred. By order dated 26.02.2024 in O.M.P. (MISC.)(COMM.) 416/2023, this Court extended the mandate of the learned Arbitrator by six months upto 26.08.2024, however, proceedings could not be concluded and mandate was further extended by order dated 17.09.2024 upto 17.03.2025. It is averred in the petition that the arbitral proceedings are at the stage of cross-examination of Respondents' witnesses and in this backdrop, further extension of six months is sought. 3.

Mr. Sumit Nagpal, learned SPC for Respondent No. 1, on instructions, submits that he has no objection to the extension of mandate of the learned Arbitrator, however, learned Arbitrator be directed to expedite and conclude the proceedings at the earliest considering that proceedings are pending since 11.01.2021.

4.

With the consent of the parties, mandate of the learned Arbitrator is extended by a period of six months from 21.04.2025 and period between 18.03.2025 to 20.04.2025 is regularised. Learned Arbitrator is requested to conclude the proceedings as expeditiously as possible. 5.

Petition is allowed and disposed of in the aforesaid terms. JYOTI SINGH, J APRIL 21, 2025/shivam The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.