Well Protect Manpower Services Pvt. Ltd v. Guru Govind Singh Govt. Hospital

$~69 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 436/2025 WELL PROTECT MANPOWER SERVICES PVT. LTD .....Petitioner Through:

Mr.Tarkeshwar Nath, Mr.A. Dev and Mr.Harshit Singh, Advocates versus GURU GOVIND SINGH GOVT. HOSPITAL .....Respondent Through:

Ms. Avni Singh and Mr.Raghvendra Upadhyay, Panel Counsel for GNCTD with Ms.Prapti, Ms. Pratibha Jain and Mr.Chandra Kishore Yadav, Advocates for R-1

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH

O R D E R

% 29.05.2025 I.A. 13917/2025 (Exemption) 1.

Exemption is granted subject to all just exceptions. 2.

The applicant(s) shall file legible and clearer copies of exempted documents, compliant with practice rules before the next date of hearing.

3.

The application is disposed of.

O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 436/2025 4.

This is a petition filed under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking extension of time for the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal for a further period of 6 months from 16.03.2025 for finalizing the arbitral proceeding.

5.

It is stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that the pleadings are 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 01/07/2025 at 16:29:51

voluminous in nature and the completion of pleadings took some time and hence, the delay.

6.

Ms. Avni Singh, learned counsel for the respondent No.1/GNCTD, states that there has been a delay on the part of the petitioner. However, she does not wish to file a reply.

7.

I am of the view that as per the order of 18.02.2025 passed by the Arbitral Tribunal, the mandate of the arbitrator has expired on 16.03.2025. The order also reflects that it is the respondent who sought an adjournment for making submissions.

8.

At this juncture, Ms. Avni Singh, learned counsel for the respondent No.1/GNCTD, states that the petitioner has also sought adjournments on numerous occasions.

9.

The fact remains that the petitioner and the respondent, both have sought adjournments and hence, there has been a delay. I am satisfied that the delay has been sufficiently explained. 10.

For the said reasons, the petition is allowed. The mandate of the arbitrator is extended for a further period of 6 months from 16.03.2025. 11.

Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of. JASMEET SINGH, J MAY 29, 2025 dy Click here to check corrigendum, if any 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 01/07/2025 at 16:29:51