Jaibir Singh v. Delhi Development Authority & ANR.
$~31 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 225/2025 JAIBIR SINGH .....Petitioner Through:
Mr Bhupesh Narula, Mrs Rinku Narula, Mr Anugrah Ekka, Mr Kanishk Taneja, Advocates versus DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR.
.....Respondents Through:
Mr. Sanjay Vashisht, Advocate Mr. Rajeev Lochan Mahunta and Mr.
Kaushal Chandra Jha, Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD
O R D E R
% 12.03.2025 I.A. 6629/2025 (Exemption) Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 225/2025 1.
This is a petition under Section 29A (4) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act seeking extension of the mandate of the learned Arbitrator for a further period of three months to conclude the arbitration proceedings. 2.
It is stated that disputes arose between the parties under the agreement dated 23.12.2017. It is stated that this Court vide Order dated 31.05.2021 appointed an Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes between the parties. 3.
It is stated that pleadings were completed and the mandate of the Arbitrator was extended for a period of six months by mutual consent of the The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 18/03/2025 at 11:45:43
parties which has came to an end on 12.11.2023. Thereafter, the mandate of the Arbitrator was extended by this Court from time to time and last of such extension was granted by this Court vide Order dated 20.11.2024 which will come to an end on 19.03.2025. It is stated that the matter is now at the stage of final arguments.
4.
It is stated that since the mandate of the Arbitrator will come to an end on 19.03.2025, the Petitioner has approached this Court seeking extension of mandate of the Arbitrator.
5.
Learned Counsel for the Respondent states that the Respondent has no objection to the extension of mandate of the Arbitrator. 6.
The Apex Court in Rohan Builders (India) Private Limited v. Berger Paints India Limited, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2494, has held that an application for extension of the time period for passing an arbitral award under Section 29A(4) read with Section 29A(5) is maintainable even after the expiry of the twelve-month or the extended six-month period, as the case may be.
7.
In view of the fact that the matter is at the stage of final arguments, this Court is inclined to extend the mandate of the Arbitrator till 30.10.2025 to enable the learned Arbitrator to proceed further and conclude the arbitration proceedings.
8.
The petition is disposed of along with pending application(s), if any. SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J MARCH 12, 2025 hsk The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 18/03/2025 at 11:45:43