Allowed

M/S Instapower Limited v. M/S Osram Lighting Private Limited

Delhi HC15 Apr 2024O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.)/306/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought extension of the sole arbitrator's mandate under Section 29A(4) of the Arbitration Act. The respondent did not oppose. The Court granted a 12-month extension and validated acts done after the previous mandate's expiry.

What did the court decide?

Extension of the sole arbitrator's mandate for 12 months with effect from 02.04.2024.

M/S Instapower Limited Vs M/S Osram Lighting Private Limited — Arbitration | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~25

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 306/2024

¶4

M/S INSTAPOWER LIMITED ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Shivam Singh and Ms. Shaswati Parhi, Advocates.

¶5

versus

¶6

M/S OSRAM LIGHTING PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Jayant Chawla, Advocate via video-conferencing.

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI O R D E R % 15.04.2024

¶8

I.A. 8365/2024 (Exemption)

¶9

Exemption granted, subject to just exceptions.

¶10

Application stands disposed-of.

¶11

O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 306/2024

¶12

By way of the present petition filed under section 29A(4) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act 1996, the petitioner seeks extension of the mandate of the learned Sole Arbitrator who is seized of their disputes with the respondent.

¶13

Ms. Shaswati Parhi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the learned sole arbitrator was appointed vide order dated 23.03.2022 made in ARB. P. No. 174/2022; and was granted a consensual extension of 06 months by the parties on 28.07.2023.

¶14

Counsel informs the court that the last extended mandate of the learned Sole Arbitrator ran-out on 01.04.2024.

¶15

O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 306/2024

¶16

Page 1 of 2

¶17

This is a digitally signed order.

¶18

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 04:23:12

¶19

Upon being queried, counsel submits that arbitral proceedings are now at the stage of recording of respondent’s evidence.

¶20

Issue notice.

¶21

Mr. Jayant Chawla, learned counsel appears via video-conferencing on behalf of the respondent, on advance copy; accepts notice; and does not oppose the prayer made.

¶22

Accordingly, counsel for the parties jointly submit that extension of 12 months may be granted to enable the learned Sole Arbitrator to conclude proceedings in the matter.

¶23

Upon a conspectus of the averments contained in the petition and the submissions made, the petition is allowed; and the mandate of the learned Sole Arbitrator is extended, as prayed-for, by a period of 12 months with effect from 02.04.2024, with a request to the learned Sole Arbitrator to conclude the proceedings by that time.

¶24

It is also observed that any arbitral proceedings carried-on after the expiration of the last mandate shall also stand validated and regularised.

¶25

Accordingly, the petition is disposed-of in the above terms.

¶26

Pending applications, if any, also disposed-of.

¶27

ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, J

¶28

APRIL 15, 2024 V.Rawat

¶29

O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 306/2024

¶30

Page 2 of 2

¶31

This is a digitally signed order.

¶32

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 04:23:12

M/S Instapower Limited v. M/S Osram Lighting Private Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Instapower Limited v. M/S Osram Lighting Private Limited

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

M/S Mahesh Chand Contractors Vs Container Corporation of India Ltd.

Kota Baran Tollway Pvt. Ltd. Vs National Highways Authority of India

M/S. Ivy Ecoenergy India Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S. Inox Green Energy Services Ltd.

M/S. Vanilla Clean Power Private Limited Vs M/S. Inox Green Energy Services Ltd.

Raipur Expressways Limited Vs National Highway Authority of India

Ace Engineers Bureau ( Engineers and Contractors ) through Prop. Sh. Ajay Kumar Rustagi Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Anr.

M/S Shalimar Paints Ltd. Vs M/S United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

Brite Neon Signs Pvt. Ltd. Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi

M/S Mahesh Chand Contractors Vs Container Corporation of India Ltd.

M/S. Ivy Ecoenergy India Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S. Inox Green Energy Services Ltd.

M/S. Vanilla Clean Power Private Limited Vs M/S. Inox Green Energy Services Ltd.

Brilltech Engineers Private Limited Vs Romsons Group Private Limited

Oil Natural Gas Corporation Vs M/S Markian Developers Pvt. Ltd.

Shri Radhey Buildprop Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs Adel Landmarks Limited