Allowed

Pankaj Mittal v. Union of India

Delhi HC10 Apr 2024O.M.P. (T) (COMM.)/31/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court terminated the mandate of an arbitrator under Section 14 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, due to inactivity. A substitute arbitrator was appointed, and proceedings were assigned to the Delhi International Arbitration Centre.

What did the court decide?

Termination of the mandate of the earlier arbitrator and appointment of Mr. Jagjit Singh as the sole Arbitrator.

Pankaj Mittal Vs Union of India — Arbitration | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~47

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- O.M.P. (T) (COMM.) 31/2024

¶4

PANKAJ MITTAL ..... Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr. Bhupesh Narula, Ms. Rinku Narula, and Mr. Anugrah Ekka, Advs (M: 9999877309).

¶6

versus

¶7

UNION OF INDIA ..... Respondent Through: Mr Mukul Singh, CGSC (M: 9971359512).

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH O R D E R

¶10

% 10.04.2024

¶11

This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

¶12

This is a petition filed on behalf of the Petitioner- Mr. Pankaj Mittal under Section 14 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter, ‘the Act’) seeking termination of the mandate of the ld. Arbitrator who was appointed vide order dated 2nd May, 2023 in ARB.P.1029/2022 . The Id. Arbitrator was appointed in terms of Clause 64 of the General Conditions of Contract.

¶13

The grounds averred in the petition for seeking termination of the mandate of the ld. Arbitrator are inter alia, that the ld. Arbitrator did not take steps to proceed with the arbitration even after 10 months of his appointment i.e., 2nd May, 2023. Further, it is averred that the statement of claim and defence which per Section 23(4) of the Act, which is to be completed within a period of six months from the date of reference of ld.

¶14

Page 1 of 2

¶15

O.M.P. (T) (COMM.) 31/2024

¶16

This is a digitally signed order. 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 03/07/2025 at 04:28:43

¶17

Arbitrator, has also not been completed. This, as per the Petitioner discloses the failure on part of the ld. Arbitrator to act as per the timelines prescribed.

¶18

Ld. Counsels for both the parties concede that the arbitration proceedings had not started before the earlier ld. Arbitrator. No fee was paid to the ld. Arbitrator as the ld. Arbitrator had not even entered the reference.

¶19

Notice was issued on 2nd April, 2024 and Mr. Mukul Singh, ld. CGSC had accepted notice and sought time to take instructions. 6. Today, ld. CGSC submits that Respondent has no objection if the substitute Arbitrator is appointed in the said matter, after terminating the mandate of the earlier arbitral tribunal.

¶20

Accordingly, the mandate of the earlier ld. Arbitrator is terminated. Mr. Jagjit Singh, Advocate (M:9810034684) is appointed as the sole Arbitrator for adjudication of the disputes under the aegis of the Delhi International Arbitration centre.

¶21

The arbitration proceedings shall take place under the aegis of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (hereinafter, DIAC) . The arbitration proceedings shall be conducted under the Rules of DIAC. The fee of the ld. Sole Arbitrator shall be as per the Fourth Schedule of the Act, as amended by the DIAC Rules, 2023.

¶22

List before the DIAC on 6th May, 2024.

¶23

Let a copy of the present order be emailed to Secretary, DIAC on email id- [email protected].

¶24

Petition is disposed of.

¶25

PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.

¶26

APRIL 10, 2024 mr/bh

¶27

Page 2 of 2

¶28

O.M.P. (T) (COMM.) 31/2024

¶29

This is a digitally signed order.

¶30

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 03/07/2025 at 04:28:43

Pankaj Mittal v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pankaj Mittal v. Union of India

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

Mis. Tata Aldesa (Jv) Vs Mis. Dedicated Freight Corridor Corporation of India Limited (Dfccil)

Smt Priyanka Maheshwari Vs Smt Pooja Maheshwari

Shri Sunil Kumar Vs Padam Kumar and Ors.

Vikas Chander Vs State and Ors.

Canon India Pvt. Limited Vs Sumit Digital Prints through Its Proprietor Mr Amit Kasana

Mep Infrastructure Developers Ltd. and Anr. Vs National Highways Authority of India