Allowed

M/S Anurag Enterprises v. Footwear Design and Development Institute (Fddi)

Delhi HC14 Feb 2024O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.)/50/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petition under section 29A(4) and (5) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act 1996 sought a six-month extension of the arbitral tribunal's mandate. The respondent did not object. The court extended the mandate by six months and validated steps taken during the expired period.

What did the court decide?

Mandate of Arbitral Tribunal extended by six months; past steps in the arbitral process validated and regularised.

M/S Anurag Enterprises Vs Footwear Design and Development… — Arbitration | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~20

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 50/2024

¶4

M/S ANURAG ENTERPRISES ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Pradeep Chhindra and Mr. Sidhant Malik, Advocates.

¶5

versus

¶6

FOOTWEAR DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTE (FDDI) ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Binay Kumar and Mr. Aaditya, Advocates via video-conferencing.

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI O R D E R

¶9

% 14.02.2024

¶10

I.A. 1587/2024 (Exemption)

¶11

Exemption granted, subject to just exceptions.

¶12

Let requisite compliances be made within 01 week.

¶13

Application stands disposed-of.

¶14

O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 50/2024

¶15

By way of the present petition filed under section 29A(4) and (5) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act 1996, the petitioner seeks extension of mandate of the learned Arbitral Tribunal for a period of 06 months. The first session of the learned Arbitral Tribunal was held on 17.07.2021.

¶16

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the Tribunal has been granted one consensual extension; and this petition is the first time that a court extension has been prayed-for.

¶17

Notice on this petition was issued on 22.01.2024.

¶18

O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 50/2024

¶19

Page 1 of 2

¶20

This is a digitally signed order.

¶21

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 18/12/2024 at 15:13:38

¶22

Mr. Binay Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the respondent does not wish to file reply in the matter. Counsel further submits that the respondent does not object to the extension of the mandate of the learned Arbitral Tribunal as prayedfor, except that he prays that since the matter has been pending for more than 02 years, the arbitral proceedings may be concluded at the earliest.

¶23

Attention of this court is drawn to order dated 04.01.2024 made by the learned Arbitral Tribunal, observing that its mandate has expired. Learned counsel for the parties submit that the matter is at an advanced stage and arguments on the counter-claims filed by the respondent are ongoing.

¶24

Upon a conspectus of the averments contained in the petition and the submissions made, the petition is allowed. The mandate of the learned Arbitral Tribunal is extended, as prayed-for, by a period of 06 months from today; further observing that any steps that may have been taken in the arbitral process in the past period, shall also stand validated and regularised.

¶25

The learned Arbitral Tribunal is requested to conclude the proceedings within the period of the extended mandate.

¶26

The petition is disposed-of in the above terms.

¶27

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

¶28

ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, J

¶29

FEBRUARY 14, 2024/ uj

¶30

O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 50/2024

¶31

Page 2 of 2

¶32

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 18/12/2024 at 15:13:38

M/S Anurag Enterprises v. Footwear Design and Development Institute (Fddi)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Anurag Enterprises v. Footwear Design and Development Institute (Fddi)

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 Mbl Infrastructures Ltd. Vs M/S Rpg Infratech

Ajanta Soya Limited Vs the Oriental Insurance Company

Paharpur Cooling Towers Ltd. Vs Ntpc-Bhel Power Projects Pvt. Ltd.

Dsc Limited Vs Union of India (Dgmap)

Jakson Power Pvt. Ltd. Vs Vikram Solar Ltd.

Afcons Infrastructure Limited Vs Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd.

Inbrew Beverages Private Limited Vs Indospirit Distribution Limited

Simplex Infrastructures Limited Vs Director General Married Accommodation Project

Cargill India Private Limited Vs Ion Exchange India Limited

Patil Construction Infrastructure Ltd. Vs Union of India through Ministry of Road Transport Highways

Abhishek Dutt Vs Surender Goel and Others

Dharamvir Khosla Vs Asian Hotels (North) Ltd.

Moneywise Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs Niteen Parulekar Architects Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

NHAI Vs Nyse Infrastructure Pvt. Lt