United Constructions v. Dte Gen Md Accodmmodation Projects
$~66 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 1034/2025 UNITED CONSTRUCTIONS .....Petitioner Through:
Mr.
M.
Tarique Siddiqui, Mr.
Abhishek Kumar Tanwar, Ms.
Lakshmi & Mr. Mohd. Faisal Khan, Advs.
versus DTE GEN MD ACCODMMODATION PROJECTS .....Respondent Through:
Ms. Shiva Lakshmi & Mr. Madhav Bajaj, Advs.
Ms Monika Arora, CGSC Mr Vikrant Malwal, GP for UOI
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD
O R D E R
% 18.12.2025 I.A. 31784/2025 (Exemption) Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 1034/2025 1.
The present petition under Section 29A (4) & (5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has been filed by the Petitioner seeking extension of the mandate of the learned Sole Arbitrator. 2.
It is stated that the Petitioner intends to file an application under Order XI Rule 12 and 14 of the CPC for bringing on record certain documents on record which according to the Petitioner would be necessary in the adjudication of the case and more particularly regarding the policy blacklisting of PE-AL-PE Pipes. He states that even otherwise, the matter is at the final stage of the arguments.
3.
Material on record indicates that the pleadings in the arbitration 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 22/12/2025 at 12:45:38
proceedings were completed on 06.09.2023 and the parties by mutual consent extended the mandate of the learned Sole Arbitrator for a period of six months which has come to an end on 06.03.2025. Thereafter, the Petitioner approached this Court by filing OMP(MISC)(COMM) 349/2025 wherein this Court vide Order dated 09.05.2025 extended the mandate of the learned Arbitrator for a further period of six months which came to an end on 08.11.2025.
4.
It is stated that since the mandate of the learned Sole Arbitrator has expired, the present petition has been filed seeking extension of mandate of the learned Sole Arbitrator.
5.
Learned Counsel for the Respondent states that the Respondent does not have any objection to the extension of mandate of the learned Sole 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 final stage of arguments, this Court is inclined to extend the mandate of the learned Sole Arbitrator for a period of six months from today so that the award can be pronounced. Further, the period from 08.11.2024 till today is regularized. 8.
The petition is disposed of, along with the pending applications, if any.
SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J DECEMBER 18, 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 22/12/2025 at 12:45:38