Allowed

M/S L D Jv v. Container Corporation of India

Delhi HC19 Feb 2024O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.)/114/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Delhi High Court allowed an application under Section 29A(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to extend the sole arbitrator's mandate. The court proceeded ex-parte due to the respondent's absence and directed the arbitrator to conclude proceedings by March 1, 2024.

What did the court decide?

Extension of the sole arbitrator's mandate for six months from 01.03.2024.

M/S L D Jv Vs Container Corporation of India — Arbitration | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~37

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 114/2024 & I.A. 3937/2024 M/S L D JV ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Sarthak Sawhney, Advocate. versus

¶4

CONTAINER CORPORATION OF INDIA ..... Respondent Through: None.

¶5

CORAM:

¶6

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI

¶7

O R D E R

¶8

% 19.02.2024

¶9

By way of the present petition filed under section 29A(4) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act 1996 (‘A&C’), the petitioner seeks extension of the mandate of the learned Sole Arbitrator for a period of 06 months in relation to the arbitration proceedings with the respondent.

¶10

Mr. Sarthak Sawhney, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the learned Sole Arbitrator’s mandate was last extended by a Co-ordinate Bench of this court vide order dated 17.11.2023 made in OMP Misc (Comm) No. 588/2023 for a period of 06 months, to be reckoned from 01.09.2023; with the mandate of the learned Sole Arbitrator now coming to an end on 29.02.2024.

¶11

Mr. Sawhney submits that arguments in rejoinder are to be heard on behalf of the claimant/petitioner; and delay has been occasioned interalia by reason of counsel for the respondent having suffered bereavement.

¶12

Counsel draws attention to order dated 09.02.2024 recorded by the learned Sole Arbitrator, where it is recorded that learned counsel for

¶13

O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 114/2024 Page 1 of 2

¶14

This is a digitally signed order.

¶15

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 04:21:07

¶16

the parties had jointly submitted that they would be moving the present petition seeking further extension of the mandate of the learned Sole Arbitrator. The order also records that the matter has been listed by the learned Sole Arbitrator today i.e. , 19.02.2024, to apprise her of the outcome of the present proceedings.

¶17

Issue notice.

¶18

Though Mr. Sawhney submits that they have served an advance copy upon the respondent, no one is present on behalf of the respondent when the matter is called-out.

¶19

Be that as it may, considering the prayer made, and in particular what has been observed in para 5 of order dated 09.02.2024 recorded by the learned Sole Arbitrator, it is not considered necessary to await any response from the respondent.

¶20

The respondent is accordingly proceeded ex-parte .

¶21

The petition is accordingly allowed, thereby extending the mandate of the learned Sole Arbitrator by 06 months beginning 01.03.2024, with a request to the learned Sole Arbitrator to conclude the proceedings by that time.

¶22

In view of the above, the petition is disposed-of.

¶23

Let a copy of this order be communicated by the petitioner to the learned Sole Arbitrator, as also to the respondent on the e-mail ID available in the memo of parties.

¶24

Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed-of.

¶25

ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, J

¶26

FEBRUARY 19, 2024/ ds

¶27

O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 114/2024 Page 2 of 2

¶28

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 04:21:07

M/S L D Jv v. Container Corporation of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S L D Jv v. Container Corporation 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

Inbrew Beverages Private Limited Vs Indospirit Distribution Limited

Simplex Infrastructures Limited Vs Director General Married Accommodation Project

Repl-Kcpl Jv Vs Union of India & Ors.

Globe Civil Projects Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India

Honda Cars India Ltd. & Anr. Vs Pothen Vehicles and Services Pvt. Ltd.

Punj Lloyd Ltd. Vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.

Jag Parvesh Sura Vs Uppal Engineering Company Private Limited

Punj Lloyd Limited Vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.

M/S Ecom Express Limited Vs Madbow Ventures Limited

Mr. Sunil M Nichani & Anr. Vs Mr. Pratap Choudhary & Ors.

Mr. Sunil M Nichani & Anr. Vs Mr. Pratap Choudhary & Ors.

General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Gpr Power Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

M/S. Surya Constructions Vs M/S. Ge T and D India Limited

Punit Aneja & Anr. Vs M/S v P Spaces Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.