M/S Handygo Technologies Pvt Ltd v. M/S Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd

$~27 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 370/2024 M/S HANDYGO TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD ..... Petitioner Through:

Mr. Sahil Bhalaik, Mr. Siddharth Anil Khanna and Mr. Ritik Arora, Advs. (M: 7011197579).

versus M/S BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD ..... Respondent Through:

Ms. Leena Tuteja Adv. alongwith Ms. Ishita Kadyan and Ms. Ishita Prakash Advs. (M: 9999505508).

CORAM:

JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

O R D E R

% 06.05.2024 1.

This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. 2.

This is a petition filed by M/S Handygo Technologies Pvt Ltd under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter, 'the Act') seeking extension of the mandate of the ld. Arbitrator. The mandate is stated to expire on 17th April, 2024.

3.

The disputes in the said matter pertains to contract dated 29th August, 2016 for renewal of value added services agreement dated 17th April, 2012. The said agreement is stated to have been further renewed vide agreement dated 8th August, 2018 4.

The parties were referred to arbitration vide order dated 15th March, 2022. The pleadings in the arbitration proceedings are stated to have been completed on 18th October, 2022. It is stated that the evidence in the arbitration proceedings was concluded on 25th November, 2023. 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 09/05/2024 at 11:50:38

5.

Ld. Counsel for the Respondent submits that at this stage of final arguments, the Petitioner has now moved an application seeking to place on record additional documents and production of documents by Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. ('BSNL').

6.

At that stage, the ld. Arbitrator has also increased the fee and an order has been passed to this effect which the BSNL would be objecting to. Ld. Counsel for the Respondent submits that insofar as the extension of mandate of ld. Arbitrator is concerned, she has no objection. But the no objection for the mandate being extended ought not to be construed as consent of BSNL for the enhanced fee or to the application which has been moved. 7.

Insofar as the additional fee is concerned, considering that the application has been moved by the Petitioner, at the stage of final arguments, ld. Arbitrator shall accordingly, consider the apportionment of costs, if any, based on the conduct of the parties. 8.

The mandate of the arbitral tribunal is extended by another six months.

9.

Insofar as the objection of the BSNL qua fee or the pending application, is concerned, the said objections would not be affected by this order in any manner.

10.

The present petition is disposed of with all pending applications, if any.

PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.

MAY 6, 2024 mr/bh 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 09/05/2024 at 11:50:38