Petition under Section 29A for six-month extension of the arbitral mandate in a pending arbitration where evidence concluded and judgment was reserved. The respondent did not oppose; the court extended the mandate by six months from 07.02.2024 and disposed of the petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~32
SLIPCO CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rohit Rattu and Mr. Kuljeet Sachdeva, Advocates
versus
BHARAT HEAVY ELECTRICALS LTD ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Surjendu Sankar Das, Ms. Annie Mittal and Mr. Anand Murthi Rao, Advocates
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
O R D E R % 19.02.2024
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 21/02/2024 at 14:44:47
07.02.2024.
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J
FEBRUARY 19, 2024/PT
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 21/02/2024 at 14:44:47
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the arbitrator's mandate should be extended by six months under Section 29A, the parties having reserved the matter for judgment.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
SLIPCO CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD
BHARAT HEAVY ELECTRICALS LTD
Neena Bansal Krishna
As recorded by the court registry
A miscellaneous application in an arbitration matter, commonly seeking extension of the arbitral tribunal's mandate under Section 29A.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
