Spml Infra Limited v. Delhi Jal Board
Case brief
What is this about?
In a petition under Section 29A(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the Court extended the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal by three months from August 31, 2024, allowing the petition despite the primary ground for extension being counsel unavailability.
What did the court decide?
Extension of the mandate of the learned Arbitral Tribunal by three months with effect from 31 August 2024.
What the court decided
$~44
- IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
- O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 559/2024 and IA 35094/2024 SPML INFRA LIMITED .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Parag Chaturvedi and Mr. Abhishek Verma, Advocates
versus
DELHI JAL BOARD .....Respondent Through: Mr. Karunesh Tandon, Advocate
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
%
O R D E R (ORAL) 01.08.2024
1. This is a petition under Section 29A(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 19961 seeking extension of the mandate of the learned Arbitral Tribunal, which is scheduled to expire on 31 August 2024.
2. Mr. Karunesh Tandon, learned counsel for the respondent, strenuously opposes this petition and submits that the only ground on which the extension of the mandate is being sought is that the counsel who is to argue the matter on behalf of the petitioner is not available on 3 August 2024, when the matter is next listed.
Issues for consideration
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the mandate of the learned Arbitral Tribunal should be extended by three months under Section 29A(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Coram
C. Hari Shankar
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court