Allowed

National Skill Development Corporation v. Premier Center for Competency Training Private Limited & Ors.

Delhi HC21 Aug 2024O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.)/489/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petition under Section 29A sought extension of the arbitral tribunal's mandate in loan-related disputes. Respondents raised no objection; remaining respondents were served but did not appear. The court allowed the petition.

What did the court decide?

Mandate of the arbitral tribunal extended by six months from 17.05.2024.

What the court decided

National Skill Development Corporation Vs Premier Center for… — Arbitration | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~31

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 489/2024 NATIONAL SKILL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION .....Petitioner

¶4

Through: Ms. Mani Gupta and Mr. Pranav Malhotra, Advocates.

¶5

versus

¶6

PREMIER CENTER FOR COMPETENCY TRAINING PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Akshay Nagarajan, Advocate for R-1, 5 to 8.

¶7

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN

¶8

O R D E R

¶9

% 21.08.2024

¶10

By way of this petition, under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [“the Act”], the petitioner seeks extension of the mandate of an arbitral tribunal, which is in seisin of disputes between the parties under a Loan Agreement dated 29.05.2013, and facility documents related to the said loan.

¶11

The arbitral tribunal was originally constituted by Indian Council of Arbitration, in terms of the arbitration clause contained in the Loan Agreement. Its mandate was extended by mutual consent until 16.05.2024. Further extension is sought for a period of six months from 17.05.2024.

¶12

Ms. Mani Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the parties to the Loan Agreement and to the arbitral proceedings, were

¶13

O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 489/2024

¶14

Page 1 of 2

¶15

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 23/08/2024 at 11:18:04

¶16

originally the petitioner, respondent No.1, respondent Nos. 5 to 8, and one Mr. P. K. Sridharan. By the time the arbitration proceedings commenced, Mr. P. K. Sridharan had passed away, and respondent Nos. 2 to 4, being his legal heirs, were impleaded in his place.

¶17

Notice of this petition was issued on 04.07.2024. Mr. Akshay Nagarajan, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1, 5 to 8, states that the said respondents have no objection to the relief sought in the petition. 5. Notice was also issued to respondent Nos. 2 to 4. An affidavit of service dated 16.08.2024 has been filed by the petitioner, which states that respondent Nos. 2 to 4 have been served through counsel, who appears on their behalf in the arbitral proceedings. The learned counsel has informed the petitioner that he does not have instructions. Notice was served upon the said parties by speed post and courier also, and the tracking reports have been annexed to the affidavit of service.

¶18

Additionally, respondent No. 2 has been served by email at an email address from which she has corresponded with the learned arbitrator.

¶19

Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 have not appeared to contest the petition.

¶20

In these circumstances, the petition is allowed, and the mandate of the arbitral tribunal is extended by a period of six months from 17.05.2024.

¶21

PRATEEK JALAN, J

¶22

AUGUST 21, 2024 SS/

¶23

Page 2 of 2

¶24

O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 489/2024

¶25

National Skill Development Corporation v. Premier Center for Competency Training Private Limited & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

National Skill Development Corporation v. Premier Center for Competency Training Private Limited & Ors.

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

Slipco Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Vs Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd.

Telecommunications Consultants India Ltd. Vs Smvd Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.

Devyani International Limited Vs Airports Authority of India

Anurag Enterprises Vs Footwear Design and Development Institute (Fddi)

Goel Construction Company Vs Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd.

Cobra Instalaciones Y Servicios S a Vs Drake and Scull Water and Energy India Pvt. Ltd.

Sarvesh Security Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs Managing Director Delhi State Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd.

Select Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs Advent Hospitality Pvt. Ltd.

Slipco Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Vs Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd.

Power Grid Corporation of India Limited Vs A2Z Infra Engineering Limited

Narendra Nath Ojha and Ors. Vs Tata Capital Financial Services Ltd.

Calcutta-Haldia Port Road Company Limited Vs Cwhec-Hcil (Jv)

Calcutta Haldia Port Road Company Ltd. Vs M/S Cwhec-Hcil(Jv)

Lal Prabhu Dayalji Dadu Vs Rajender Kumr & Son