Rajesh Gupta v. Oyo Hotels And Homes Pvt Ltd
$~105 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 215/2025 & I.A. 17331/2025 RAJESH GUPTA .....Petitioner Through:
Mr. Sachin Bansal, Adv.
versus OYO HOTELS AND HOMES PVT LTD .....Respondent Through:
Mr. Chaitanya Kaushik, Adv. Mr.
Avinash K Singh, Adv. Ms. Seema Mehta, Adv.
Mr. Saurabh Pal, Adv. Ms. Vidhi Uppal, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH
O R D E R
% 11.08.2025 1.
This is a petition filed under Section 29A (5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, ("the Act") seeking extension of the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal in Arbitration Proceedings between "Rajesh Gupta vs. M/s OYO Hotels and Homes Pvt. Ltd.", by a period of six (6) months. 2.
In the present case, the Arbitral Tribunal entered reference on 14.03.2022 and the first sitting of the Arbitral Tribunal took place on 14.05.2022.
3.
On 20.10.2023, the final arguments on behalf of the claimants commenced and thereafter, the parties expressed their willingness to explore the possibility of settlement through mediation. 4.
However, on 18.12.2023, the Arbitral Tribunal recorded that the mediation has failed between the parties and fixed the matter for further The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
hearing on 12.01.2024. The order dated 18.12.2023 is extracted below: - 5.
A perusal of the order dated 18.12.2023 shows that the Arbitral Tribunal recorded that the parties shall file an application seeking extension of the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal.
6.
In response, the respondent sent an email dated 02.02.2024, extracted below:- The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
7.
A perusal of the email shows that the respondent clearly brought it to the notice of the petitioner to approach the Court for extension of the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal.
8.
Thereafter, on 07.03.2024, the respondent again wrote an email stating that the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal has expired, and it has become functus officio and hence, the proceedings ought to be terminated. The email is extracted below: - The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
9.
In response, the counsel for the petitioner, sent an email on 08.03.2024, informing that they are in the process of approaching the High Court for extension of the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal.
10. Thereafter, no further steps were taken by the petitioner or his counsel until 01.10.2024, when a draft copy of the petition seeking extension of mandate was forwarded to the counsel of the respondent via email.
11. Again, from 01.10.2024 no steps were taken by the petitioner till 10.02.2025 i.e., the date of filing of the present petition.
12. Mr. Bansal learned counsel for the petitioner, states that the previous counsel for the petitioner, after 01.10.2024, took no steps to file the The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
petition and that the petitioner should not suffer for the lapses on the part of his previous counsel.
13. The purpose of Section 29A of the Act is to save valuable time of the parties by ensuring timely completion of the arbitration proceedings, as also observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rohan Builders (India) Private Limited vs. Berger Paints India Limited, 2024 SCC Online SC 2494, as under:- "13. An interpretive process must recognize the goal or purpose of the legal text. Section 29A intends to ensure the timely completion of arbitral proceedings while allowing courts the flexibility to grant extensions when warranted. Prescribing a limitation period, unless clearly stated in words or necessary, should not be accepted. Bar by limitation has penal and fatal consequences..."
14. In the present case, the facts reproduced above, clearly shows that the petitioner has lapsed on his obligation to take due steps for extending the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal, despite the Arbitral Tribunal as well as the respondent repeatedly reminding him of the same.
15. To my mind, the petitioner has not explained the delay in filing of the present petition under Section 29A (5) of the Act for extension of the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal, at all much less satisfactorily.
16. The aim and objective of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is to ensure a speedy disposal of disputes between the parties, which in the present case, the petitioner with his delayed attitude has totally failed to uphold.
17. For the said reasons, the extension of the mandate of the Arbitral The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
Tribunal in Arbitration Proceedings between "Rajesh Gupta vs. M/s OYO Hotels and Homes Pvt. Ltd." by a further period of six months is contrary to the objective of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 of speedy and timely disposal and hence, is dismissed.
18. The petition is dismissed along with pending applications, if any. JASMEET SINGH, J AUGUST 11, 2025 / (MS) The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.