Disposed

M/S Axalta Coating Systems India Private Limited v. M/S Sanga Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.

Delhi HC16 May 2024O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.)/394/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petition under section 29A(4)/(5) A&C Act sought extension of a Sole Arbitrator's mandate after expiry, respondents having been set ex-parte. The court held consensual extension under 29A(3) was ineffectual against ex-parte respondents, dispensed with notice, extended the mandate by four months and regularised post-expiry proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Mandate of Sole Arbitrator extended by four months from order date; proceedings after 20.04.2024 validated; petition disposed.

M/S Axalta Coating Systems India Private Limited Vs M/S Sanga… — Arbitration | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~38

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 394/2024

¶4

M/S AXALTA COATING SYSTEMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED

¶5

..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Ayushman Singh and Mr. Aditya N. Prasad, Advocates.

¶6

versus

¶7

M/S SANGA AUTOMOBILES PVT. LTD. AND ANR.

¶8

..... Respondents

¶9

Through:

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI

¶11

¶12

O R D E R 16.05.2024

¶13

By way of the present petition filed under section 29A(4) and (5) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act 1996 (‘A&C Act’), the petitioner seeks extension of the mandate of the learned Sole Arbitrator, who is seized of their disputes with the respondents.

¶14

Mr. Ayushman Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits, that the learned Sole Arbitrator was appointed by way of order dated 07.12.2021 made in ARB.P. No.932/2021 passed by this court and has been seized of the arbitral proceedings ever-since.

¶15

Mr. Singh submits, that the respondents were duly served by the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (‘DIAC’) in the arbitral proceedings since the proceedings were being conducted under the aegis of the DIAC. The respondents were represented through counsel; the

¶16

Page 1 of 4

¶17

O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 394/2024

¶18

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 04:23:43

¶19

respondents filed their statement of defence in the arbitral proceedings; and subsequently issues were also framed in the presence of the respondents. Counsel points-out, that all this is recorded in order dated 27.02.2024 made by the learned Arbitrator. 4. Mr. Singh also points out that the matter was at the stage of crossexamination of claimant’s witnesses; and during the course of hearing there were some talks between the parties for settlement of their disputes; and the matter was adjourned at the respondents’ request for that purpose. However, when the matter was subsequently taken-up on 04.12.2023, counsel representing the respondents requested for withdrawal of his vakalatnama , whereupon he was directed to notify the respondents of his intention to do so.

¶20

Pursuant thereto, the respondents were informed about withdrawal of the vakalatnama by their counsel; and by way of abundant caution, the learned Arbitrator directed the DIAC to send a notice to the respondents; but the respondents refused to receive the notice. Thereafter the respondents also failed to participate or be represented in the arbitral proceedings.

¶21

It is submitted, that by reason of the above, vide order dated 27.02.2024, the learned Arbitrator set the respondents ex-parte .

¶22

Furthermore, learned counsel for the petitioner submits, that since the respondent had already been set ex-parte ; the provisions of section 29A(3) of the A&C Act, providing for a consensual extension of the mandate, was ineffectual and could not have been put into operation.

¶23

Mr. Singh submits, that as recorded in order dated 19.04.2024 made by the learned Arbitrator, ex-parte arguments have now been

¶24

Page 2 of 4

¶25

O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 394/2024

¶26

¶27

concluded in the matter and the petitioner (claimant in the arbitral proceedings) has been directed to file their written submissions.

¶28

In the circumstances, it is prayed, that no purpose will be served by issuing notice to the respondents, since it is evident from the record that they have been evading the proceedings despite being duly aware of the pendency of the proceedings and having participated therein earlier-on.

¶29

In view of what has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner; and based on the record, this court is of the view, that by the very nature of the wording of section 29A(3) of the A&C Act, that provision contemplates a situation where the mandate of the learned Arbitrator is extending by consent of the parties; and the provision does not contemplate a unilateral extension by one of the parties since that would do violence to the very wording and intent of the section.

¶30

In the circumstances, the correct course of action for a party to an arbitration, which is proceeding ex-parte , is to approach the court to seek extension of the mandate, as has been correctly done by the petitioner in the present case.

¶31

In the circumstances, the court is persuaded to agree with the submission made that there is no purpose in issuing notice to the respondents.

¶32

Consequently, the petition is allowed, thereby extending the mandate of the learned Arbitrator by 04 months, with effect from today, as has been prayed-for. Any arbitral proceedings conducted after the expiry of the previous mandate on 20.04.2024, shall also stand validated and regularised.

¶33

Page 3 of 4

¶34

O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 394/2024

¶35

¶36

The petition is disposed-of.

¶37

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

¶38

ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, J

¶39

MAY 16, 2024/ ak

¶40

Page 4 of 4

¶41

O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 394/2024

¶42

M/S Axalta Coating Systems India Private Limited v. M/S Sanga Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Axalta Coating Systems India Private Limited v. M/S Sanga Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.

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

Modern Construction Company Vs Union of India & Ors.

Iqbal Singh Sethi & Ors. Vs Prasad Ivf Clinic Pvt. Ltd.

Sterlite Technologies Limited Vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited

Uttar Pradesh Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Limited Vs Employees State Insurance Corporation Limited

Epc Constructions India Limited Vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited

Sunrise Embedded Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs Design Graphics & Anr.

Mbl Infrastrucutre Ltd. Vs Pradeep Colonisers and Suppliers Pvt. Ltd.

Prl Projects and Infrastructure Ltd. Vs Public Works Department

Surender Pratap Singh Chauhan Vs Smt. Dharamvati & Ors.

Modern Construction Company Vs Union of India & Ors.

Applause Hospitality Services Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs New Delhi Municipal Council

Agilus Diagnostics Limited Vs Shri Sainath Pathology Center & Anr.

M/S Aushta Consulting Engineers Pvt. Ltd. in Jv With Dn Consultant Vs National Highways and Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd.

M/S Ankit India Vs M/S Mi Industries (India) Pvt. Ltd.