Allowed

M/S Ascent Construction Pvt. Ltd. v. M/S Logix Heights Pvt. Ltd.

Delhi HC22 Jan 2024O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.)/49/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petition for extension of the arbitrator's mandate under Section 29A in construction-related arbitration proceedings at final arguments stage. Respondent did not object. Mandate extended by one year with effect from 01.12.2023, with liberty to impose costs on uncooperative parties.

What did the court decide?

Mandate of the learned Arbitrator extended by one year with effect from 01.12.2023.

M/S Ascent Construction Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Logix Heights Pvt. Ltd. — Arbitration | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~34

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 49/2024 M/S ASCENT CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD ..... Petitioner Through: Ms. Bharti Tyagi, Advocate.

¶4

versus

¶5

M/S LOGIX HEIGHTS PVT LTD ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Atul Nigam, Ms. Tanvi Nigam, Advocates.

¶6

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN

¶7

O R D E R % 22.01.2024

¶8

I.A. 1497/2024 ( for exemption )

¶9

Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶10

The application stands disposed of.

¶11

O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 49/2024

¶12

The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, for an extension of the mandate of the learned Arbitrator, who is in seisin of disputes between the parties under an agreement dated 30.08.2018.

¶13

The learned Arbitrator was appointed by an order of this Court dated 23.12.2019 in O.M.P.(I)(COMM) 308/2019. His mandate has been extended from time to time, and lastly by order of this Court dated 19.01.2023 in O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 18/2023.

¶14

I am informed that proceedings are at the stage of final arguments of the claimant.

¶15

Page 1 of 2

¶16

O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 49/2024

¶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 06/06/2024 at 14:44:00

¶19

Mr. Atul Nigam, learned counsel for the respondent, who appears on advance notice, does not object to the relief sought, but brings it to the attention of the Court that proceedings have been adjourned from time to time at the request of the petitioner itself. He draws my attention to the orders and communications of the learned Arbitrator, which have been placed on record, with regard to filing of written submissions and engagement of learned Senior Counsel.

¶20

Suffice it to state at this stage that, Ms. Bharti Tyagi, learned counsel for the claimant, undertakes that the claimant will abide by the orders of the learned Arbitrator with regard to further conduct of the proceedings and no unnecessary adjournments will be sought. The assurance of learned counsel is noted with the observation that the learned Arbitrator may consider imposition of costs, or any other directions which appear to him to be appropriate in the event either party is uncooperative.

¶21

The petition is allowed with the above observations and the mandate of the learned Arbitrator is extended by a period of one year with effect from 01.12.2023.

¶22

PRATEEK JALAN, J

¶23

JANUARY 22, 2024 “Bhupi”/

¶24

Page 2 of 2

¶25

O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 49/2024

¶26

This is a digitally signed order.

¶27

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 06/06/2024 at 14:44:00

M/S Ascent Construction Pvt. Ltd. v. M/S Logix Heights Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Ascent Construction Pvt. Ltd. v. M/S Logix Heights Pvt. Ltd.

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

Tecpro Systems Ltd. Vs NTPC Ltd.

Gr Infraprojects Limited Vs Score Information Technologies Limited

Ms Il and Fs Engineering and Construction Company Ltd. Vs Indian Strategic Petroleum Reserves Ltd.

Rajinder Prashad Gupta Vs Delhi Development Authority & Anr.

Svec Construction Limited Vs Air Force Naval Housing Board

Dhoot Developers Pvt. Ltd. (Jv) Bengal Silver Spring Projects Ltd. Vs the Union of India

M/S Satya Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Delhi Buildtech Pvt. Ltd.

Central Warehousing Corporation Vs M/S Mrinmaye Trading and Movers Pvt. Limited

Tecpro Systems Ltd. Vs NTPC Ltd.

P. S. Denim & Anr. Vs Fedbank Financial Services Ltd. . & Anr.

Rapipay Fintech Pvt. Ltd. Vs Mr. Neil Maheshwari

Pradeep Saith Vs Shri Dilip Mehta & Ors.

M/S Lease Plan India Private Limited Vs M/S Antfarm Business Incubator Private Limited & Ors.

M/S Sis Ltd. (Formerly Securities and Intelligence Services (India) Ltd) Vs Angelique International Limited