Allowed

Esha Kedia v. Milan R Parekh & Ors.

Delhi HC5 Sept 2024O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.)/682/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petition under Section 29A(5) sought extension of the arbitral tribunal's mandate by one year to conclude proceedings. Delay in refiling was condoned; sufficient cause was found and the mandate was extended by one year, with the interim period regularized.

What did the court decide?

Mandate of Arbitral Tribunal extended by one year; period from 04.06.2024 regularized; refiling delay condoned.

Esha Kedia Vs Milan R Parekh & Ors. — Arbitration | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~35

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 682/2024

¶4

ESHA KEDIA .....Petitioner Through: Mr Rahul Kr Singh, Adv. (through VC)

¶5

versus

¶6

MILAN R PAREKH & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr Shashank Bajpai, Adv. (through VC)

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH

O R D E R

% 05.09.2024

I.A. 38469/2024

This is an application seeking condonation of 56 days’ delay in refiling the present petition.

¶13

In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel and for the reasons stated in the application, the delay of 56 days in re-filing the present petition is condoned.

¶14

The application is disposed of.

¶15

O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 682/2024

¶16

This is a petition filed under Section 29A(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking extension of mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal by a period of 1 year for concluding the arbitral proceedings and passing the final award.

¶17

It is stated that the delay occurred due to the fact that the respondents

¶18

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 10/09/2024 at 12:14:47

¶19

are based of Mumbai and their witnesses are being examined.

¶20

Issue notice.

¶21

Mr Bajpai, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of the respondents and states that he has no objection to the petition being allowed.

¶22

For the reasons noted above, I am of the view that sufficient cause has been explained for the delay. The petition is allowed and the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal is extended by a period of 1 year from today.

¶23

The period from 04.06.2024 till today stands regularized.

¶24

The petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶25

JASMEET SINGH, J

¶26

SEPTEMBER 5, 2024 sr

¶27

Click here to check corrigendum, if any

¶28

This is a digitally signed order.

¶29

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 10/09/2024 at 12:14:47

Esha Kedia v. Milan R Parekh & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Esha Kedia v. Milan R Parekh & 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

Cybizcall International Pvt. Ltd. Vs Brightstar Restaurants Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

Ranchi Expressways Ltd. Vs National Highways Authority of India

M/S Pcc Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs Airport Authority of India

Emco Limited Vs Delhi Transco Limited

Daya Sagar Sharma Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Anr.

M/S. Kaithal Tollway Ltd. Vs National Highways Authority of India

Millennium City Expressways Private Limited Vs National Highways Authority of India

Suyojit Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs Iic Limited (Under Liquidation) & Anr.

Tata Capital Limited Vs M/S Bharat Trading & Ors.

Tata Capital Limited (Transferee of Tata Capital Financial Services Ltd.) Vs M/S. Jerath Path Labs & Ors.

M/S Kamala Mills Ltd. Vs India Bulls Housing Finance Ltd. and Anr.

Samir Chopra Vs Yogesh Malik and Ors.

Sms-Aabs India Tollways Private Limited Vs National Highways Authority of India

M/S Indian Potash Limited Vs M/S Prem Sakhi Fertilizer Limited