Hero Fincorp Limited v. Jumbo Finvest (India) Limited & ORS.

$~63 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 492/2025 HERO FINCORP LIMITED .....Petitioner Through:

Mr. Ajay Kohli, Mr. S.S. Sobti and Ms. Ayushi Bansal, Advs.

versus JUMBO FINVEST (INDIA) LIMITED & ORS.

.....Respondents Through:

Mr. Animesh Khandelwal, Advocate for R2 and R3.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD

O R D E R

% 02.12.2025 1.

The present petition under Section 29A(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has been filed by the Petitioner for extending the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal.

2.

Material on record indicates that an Arbitral Tribunal was constituted by this Court on 02.02.2022. Material on record indicates that the pleadings were completed on 23.12.2022 and consequently, this Court vide Order dated 21.08.2024 extended the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal. The second extension of mandate was for a period of 09 months from 21.08.2024. The mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal has expired on 21.05.2025, and therefore, the present petition has been filed for extending the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal.

3.

It is stated that the arbitration is at the stage of cross-examination of Claimant's witness. The cross-examination of Technical Expert-LC-2 is going on before the Arbitrator and, therefore, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner has prayed that the mandate of the Arbitrator be extended for a 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 10/12/2025 at 12:53:19

period of 11 months.

4.

It is stated that pending adjudication of their claims before the learned Arbitrator, Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are undergoing personal insolvency proceedings under Section 95 of the IBC.

5.

The present Petition is one for extension of mandate which is not an application as to whether the learned Arbitrator can proceed ahead with the arbitration or not. Since the present Petition is restricted only to extension of mandate considering the fact that the arbitration has travelled a considerable distance inasmuch as pleadings have been completed, the evidence are being recorded, this Court is inclined to extend the mandate up to 30.06.2026. 6.

It is for the learned Arbitrator to take a decision as to whether the arbitration can proceed against the Respondent No.1 alone or not. 7.

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.

8.

In view of the facts of the present case, this Court is inclined to regularize the period from 21.05.2025 till today and extend the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal till 30.06.2026, so that the award can be pronounced. 9.

The petition is disposed of, along with the pending applications, if any.

SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J DECEMBER 2, 2025 Prateek 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 10/12/2025 at 12:53:19