Allowed

Ansaldo Signal Consortium & Anr. v. North Central Railway Project Unit

Delhi HC5 Jul 2024O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.)/494/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Delhi High Court, addressing a petition for extension of an Arbitral Tribunal's mandate under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, allowed the extension by one year. The Court noted the volume of evidence and hearings pending, aligning with a mutual consent order recorded by the Tribunal.

What did the court decide?

The petition is allowed; the mandate of the learned Arbitral Tribunal is extended by the period of one year with effect from 26.06.2024.

Ansaldo Signal Consortium & Anr. Vs North Central Railway Project… — Arbitration | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~28

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 494/2024

¶4

ANSALDO SIGNAL CONSORTIUM & ANR. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Dinesh Pardasani & Mr. Siddharth Chechani, Advocates.

¶5

versus

¶6

NORTH CENTRAL RAILWAY PROJECT UNIT .....Respondent Through: Mr. Piyush Hans, Advocate. CORAM:

¶7

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN O R D E R

¶8

% 05.07.2024

¶9

I.A. 32372/2024 ( Exemption )

¶10

Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶11

The application stands disposed of.

¶12

O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 494/2024

¶13

The petitioners have filed this petition under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [“the Act”], for extension of the mandate of the learned Arbitral Tribunal [“the Tribunal”], which is in seisin of disputes between the parties under an agreement dated 01.02.2006.

¶14

Disputes arose between the parties pursuant to which the petitioners invoked arbitration on 07.12.2020 and nominated their nominee arbitrator. The respondent nominated their nominee arbitrator only on 24.05.2022 after which the learned presiding arbitrator was nominated on 07.06.2022.

¶15

The proceedings before the learned Tribunal are at the stage of recording of evidence. I am informed that 8 witnesses of the petitionerclaimants have already been cross-examined and hearings have been

¶16

O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 494/2024

¶17

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 04:20:52

¶18

fixed in the end of this month, for cross-examination of the 8 witnesses of the respondent.

¶19

Having regard to the number of witnesses and the volume of the record, the petitioner seeks an extension of 12 months in the mandate of the learned Tribunal. Mr. Dinesh Pardasani, learned counsel for the petitioner, also draws my attention to an order of the learned Tribunal dated 08.05.2024 which records the consent of both parties for such an extension.

¶20

Mr. Piyush Hans, learned counsel, appears on behalf of the respondent on advance notice. He submits upon instructions that the extension may be granted for the period of six months instead of one year.

¶21

Having regard to the number of witnesses yet to be examined, and to the fact that final arguments will have to be led by both sides, after which the Tribunal will deliberate and prepare the award, I am of the view that the extension of the mandate by one year as sought by the petitioner is not unreasonable.

¶22

The petition is consequently allowed, and the mandate of the learned Tribunal is extended by the period of one year with effect from 26.06.2024. However, it is noted that learned counsel for both parties have assured the Court that they will cooperate with the learned Tribunal for disposal of the reference within this time frame and no unnecessary adjournments will be sought.

¶23

PRATEEK JALAN, J

¶24

JULY 5, 2024/ ‘pv’/

¶25

O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 494/2024

¶26

Page 2 of 2

¶27

Ansaldo Signal Consortium & Anr. v. North Central Railway Project Unit

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ansaldo Signal Consortium & Anr. v. North Central Railway Project Unit

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

Green Infra Wind Energy Private Limited Vs Siemens Gamesa Renewable Power Private Limited

Omega Finvest LLP Vs Direct News Private Limited

Dr Er Rajainderr Jaina , Rajender Jaina Vs Lakshmi Narain Nagar

Ratnagiri Gas and Power Privatelimited Vs National Insurance Company Limited

Smt. Manju Khanna Proprietor of M/S Modella Shop Vs Tata Aig General Insurance Co. Ltd.

Dhananjay Singh Rathore & Anr. Vs Parviom Technologies Private Limited & Anr.

Apex Buildsys Ltd. Vs National Automotive Testing and R and D Infrastructure Project

M/S. J. M Mhatre Infra Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, Govt. of India

Asf Buildtech Private Limited Vs Shapoorji Pallonji and Company Private Limited & Ors.

Ms Ghvh Pte Ltd. Vs Ms Roadgods Autogear Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

Rajinder Khanna@ Rajinder Pal Khanna and Ors. Vs Harsh Sehgal

Ishwar Prasad Vs M/S Indira Lodging Pvt. Ltd.

N.D.P.L. Vs Delhi Transco Ltd.

Airports Authority of India Vs Spv Consortium and Ors.