Allowed

Aditya Birla Finance Limited v. Mothers Pride Educational Personna Private Limited and Ors.

Delhi HC17 Sept 2024O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.)/697/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petition for extension of the Arbitral Tribunal's mandate, as several respondents were in CIRP or exparte and only Respondent 5 contested. Court declined to adjudicate on delay attribution and extended the mandate by one year from 31 August 2024.

What did the court decide?

Mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal extended by one year, treated as continuing from 31 August 2024.

Aditya Birla Finance Limited Vs Mothers Pride Educational Personna… — Arbitration | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~48

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 697/2024 & I.A. 38874/2024 ADITYA BIRLA FINANCE LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Nikita Rathi, Mr. Debarshi Dutta, Ms. Manvi Adlakha, Advs.

¶4

versus

¶5

MOTHERS PRIDE EDUCATIONAL PERSONNA PRIVATE LIMITED AND ORS ....Respondents Through: Mr. Jai Mohan, Adv.

¶6

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR

¶7

¶8

ORDER (ORAL) 17.09.2024

¶9

1. This is a petition under Section 29A(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996¹ for extension of the mandate of the learned Arbitral Tribunal presently in seisin of the disputes between the parties.

¶10

2. Of the nine respondents, Respondent 4 has been proceeded exparte before the learned Arbitral Tribunal and has also not entered appearance before this Court.

¶11

3. Respondents 1 to 3 and 6 to 9 are facing CIRP proceedings before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT).

¶12

4. It is seen that, on 16 March 2023, the learned Arbitral Tribunal, taking into account all these facts, notes, in para 5, that the only

¶13

Signature Not Verified1 “the 1996 Act”, hereinafter Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Da te:1 9.09.2 024 13:42:54 O.M.P.(Misc.)(Comm.) 697/2024

¶14

Signature Not Verified

¶15

Digitally Signed By:CHANDRASHEKHARAN HARI SHANKAR Page 1 of 2 Signing Date:13:42:11 19.0 9.2024

¶16

surviving and contesting respondent is Respondent 5.

¶17

5. Respondent 5 is represented today by Mr. Jai Mohan.

¶18

6. While Mr. Jai Mohan does not have any objection to extension of the mandate of the learned Arbitral Tribunal, he does object to the assertions in this petition regarding delay. He submits that delay in the arbitral proceedings cannot be attributed to his clients.

¶19

7. This Court is not entering into the said aspect.

¶20

8. This order shall not be treated as an expression of opinion one way or the other on the assertions of facts contained in the present petition.

¶21

9. The court is only inclined to extend the mandate of the learned Arbitral Tribunal so that the disputes could arrive at a quietus.

¶22

10. Accordingly, the mandate of the learned Arbitral Tribunal shall stand extended by a period of one year from today. The mandate shall be treated as continuing from 31 August 2024 when it expired by efflux by time.

¶23

11. The petition stands allowed in the aforesaid terms.

¶24

C.HARI SHANKAR, J

¶25

SEPTEMBER 17, 2024/ dsn

¶26

Click here to check corrigendum, if any

¶27

Signature Not Verified

¶28

Signature Not Verified

¶29

Digitally Signed By:CHANDRASHEKHARAN HARI SHANKAR Page 2 of 2 Signing Date:13:42:11 19.0 9.2024

¶30

Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Da te:1 9.09.2 024 13:42:54 O.M.P.(Misc.)(Comm.) 697/2024

Aditya Birla Finance Limited v. Mothers Pride Educational Personna Private Limited and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aditya Birla Finance Limited v. Mothers Pride Educational Personna Private Limited and 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

M/S Ratna Infrastructure Projects Pvt. Ltd. (Rippl) Vs M/S Meja Urja Nigam Private Limited (Munpl)

Anupam Bajaj Vs Vijay Kumar Sharma

Emco Limited Vs Delhi Transco Limited

Swaranjit Singh Narula Security Agency Vs NTPC Limited

Leap Green Energy Private Limited Vs Inox Wind Energy Limited & Ors.

Eastern Software Systems Pvt. Ltd. Vs Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University

National Highway Authority of India Vs Gvk Jaipur Expressway Private Limited

Poonam Mittal Vs M/S Creat Ed Pvt. Ltd.

M/S Canon India Pvt. Limited Vs M/S Abhay Graphics through Its Proprietor Mr Raman Sharma

Knr Muzaffarpur Barauni Tollways Private Limited Vs National Highways Authority of India

M/S Ratna Infrastructure Projects Pvt. Ltd. (Rippl) Vs M/S Meja Urja Nigam Private Limited (Munpl)

Sgs India Private Limited Vs Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation

Mr. Rakesh Sawhney & Anr. Vs M/S Skyline Constructions and Anr. .

Aditya Birla Finance Limited Vs Scholar Tube Education and Learning Solutions Private Limited and Ors.