Allowed

Samsung India Electronics Private Ltd. v. Kings Electronics Pvt. Ltd.

Delhi HC20 Jan 2020O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.)/22/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Delhi High Court allowed a petition under Section 29A(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking an extension of time for arbitral proceedings. The court extended the time by six months and regularised the intervening period, noting the respondent had failed to appear due to lack of instructions. Issuance of notice to the respondent was waived.

What did the court decide?

Time for completion of proceedings and passing of the Award extended by six months from 20.01.2020; the period between 02.11.2019 and 19.01.2020 regularised.

Samsung India Electronics Private Ltd. Vs Kings Electronics Pvt… — Arbitration | Delhi HC (2020)

¶1

$~A-33

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

% Date of decision: 20.01.2020

¶4

- O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 22/2020

¶5

SAMSUNG INDIA ELECTRONICS PRIVATE LTD...... Petitioner Through: Mr. Rajeev Kumar, Advocate

¶6

versus

¶7

KINGS ELECTRONICS PVT LTD. ..... Respondent Through:

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH

¶9

JYOTI SINGH, J. (ORAL)

¶10

I.A. 692/2020

¶11

Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.

¶12

Application stands disposed of.

¶13

O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 22/2020

¶14

This is a petition filed under Section 29A(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘Act’) seeking extension of time for completion of the arbitral proceedings and passing of the Award.

¶15

The Arbitrator was appointed on 02.11.2018. The applicant filed its Statement of Claim on 23.01.2019 and a copy of the same was sent to the respondent by email. It is the case of the petitioner that on 20.02.2019, the learned Arbitrator received a call from the lawyer Mr. Prathamesh Soman stating that he had been appointed as a counsel for the respondent and sought

¶16

O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 22/2020 Page 1 of 3

¶17

an adjournment on personal grounds. The matter was adjourned to 07.03.2019. On 07.03.2019, no one appeared on behalf of the respondent. The Arbitrator granted another opportunity to the respondent to file its Statement of Defence and the matter was adjourned to 21.03.2019. The said day being a holiday, proceedings were adjourned to 25.03.2019. Even on 25.03.2019, no one appeared on behalf of the respondent and the matter was re-notified to 10.04.2019. The petitioner herein then filed an application for substituted service which was allowed on 29.04.2019. Publication was made in the newspaper on 03.06.2019. On 03.07.2019, a new counsel, Mr. Ravi Lomod, appeared on behalf of the respondent and a copy of the statement of claim was provided to him. The matter was re-notified for 28.08.2019. Even on 28.08.2019, no one appeared on behalf of the respondent. The Arbitrator called Mr. Ravi Lomod, who had appeared on 03.07.2019. Mr. Lomod informed the Arbitrator that he had no further instructions in the matter from his client. Since there was no appearance on behalf of the respondent, despite publication, the Arbitrator proceeded ex-parte against the respondent and adjourned the matter.

¶18

On 09.11.2019, the petitioner herein filed an application for bringing certain documents on record, which was allowed on 15.11.2019.

¶19

The statutory period of twelve months under Section 29A(1) of the Act expired on 01.11.2019. On 04.12.2019, when the matter was taken up by the Arbitrator, it was pointed out that the statutory period of twelve months had expired. Since the respondent had been proceeded ex-parte, consent for extending the period by a further period of six months could not be granted. In these circumstances petitioner has approached this Court. 5. Since the respondent had not cared to appear before the Arbitrator and

¶20

Page 2 of 3

¶21

O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 22/2020

¶22

has been proceeded ex-parte, this Court does not deem it fit to issue notice to the respondent. Issuance of notice is hereby waived.

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the proceedings are at the stage of ex-parte evidence and seeks a period of six months for completion of proceedings and passing of the Award.

¶24

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, I am satisfied that a case for extension of time is made out. Time for completion of the proceedings and passing of the Award is hereby extended by a period of six months from 20.01.2020. The period between 02.11.2019 till 19.01.2020 is hereby regularised.

¶25

The petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms.

¶26

JYOTI SINGH, J

¶27

JANUARY 20, 2020 rd/

¶28

Page 3 of 3

¶29

O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 22/2020

Samsung India Electronics Private Ltd. v. Kings Electronics Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Samsung India Electronics Private Ltd. v. Kings Electronics Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Atlanta Infra Assets Limited Vs National Highways Authority of India

Rakyan Beverages Pvt. Ltd. Vs Dairy Chem Corporation

Masyc Projects Private Limited Vs Tata Steel Bsl Limiited (Erstwhile:Bhushan Steel Limited)

Masyc Projects Private Limited Vs Tata Steel Bsl Limited(Erstwhile Bhushan Steel Limited)

M/S S.S.Total Construction (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs All India Institute of Medical Sciences (Aiims)

Cec-Sam India Jv Vs Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Limited

Cec-Sam India Jv Vs Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Limited

Cec-Sam India Jv Vs Delh Metro Rail Corporation Limited

Srm Buildcon Ltd. Vs the General Manager Northern Railway, Baroda House

Canadian Infrastructure Group India Pvt.Ltd.(in Vol. Liqn.) Vs ....

Mohit Chhabra & Ors. Vs PNB Housing Finance Ltd.

Minesh Chopra Vs Delhi Metro Rail Corporation

Minesh Chopra Vs Delhi Metro Rail Corporation

Proddatur Cable Tv Digi Services Vs Siti Cable Network Limited