Dtl Ancillaries Limited Through Its Authorized Representative Nitin Metkari v. Sbi General Insurance Company Limited

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 109 OF 2024 SHRADDHA KAMLESH TALEKAR DTL Ancillaries Limited through its Authorized Representative NitinMenekar

...Petitioner

Versus

SBI General Insurance Company Limited

...Respondent

SHRADDHA KAMLESH TALEKAR Date: 2025.01.15 21:59:47 +0530 Mr. Ashish Suryavanshi, for Petitioner.

Ms. Nikita Vardhan and Ms. Nidhi Pathak i/b Kanga & Company, for Respondent.

CORAM : SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, J.

Date : January 9, 2025 P. C.

1.

This is a Petition filed under Section 29-A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ("the Act") seeking formal extension of the mandate of the arbitrator, who, has already passed the Arbitral Award on June 14, 2024. In fact, this Petition had been filed on April 5, 2024, in anticipation of the mandate being scheduled to expire on April 7, 2024. However, the Petition has remained pending before this Court.

2.

Learned Counsel for the Respondent submits that there is a Petition under Section 34 of the Act, which has already challenged the Arbitral Award.

She, however, submits that the conduct of the Petitioner has been dilatory in nature and the delay has been occasioned solely by reason of the conduct of the Petitioner.

3.

Be that as it may, considering that the Arbitral Award has already been passed and this is a formal extension to cover the mandate up to the date of the award, I hereby extend the mandate until June 15, 2024. 4.

It is made clear that this extension of mandate shall not, in any manner, prejudice all rights and contentions of the parties that may be agitated before the Court hearing the Petition under Section 34 of the Act. 5.

It is made clear that it would be open to the Court exercising jurisdiction under Section 34 to assess the submissions of the Respondent in connection with the imposition of costs for the delay in the conduct of the proceedings. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, although this Court has never been hesitant to impose costs, particularly in commercial disputes, I see no purpose in expending further judicial energy on assessing costs for extension of mandate, at this stage of the matter. 6.

The Petition is finally disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

7.

All actions required to be taken pursuant to this order, shall be taken upon receipt of a downloaded copy as available on this Court's website. [ SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, J.]