Allowed

Aditya Birla Finance Limited v. Presidium Educational Institution Private Limited and Ors.

Delhi HC8 Oct 2024O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.)/699/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petition filed for extension of the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The Court, noting that only one respondent was contesting and observing no objection to extension, allowed the petition and extended the mandate for one year to allow the dispute to reach a conclusion.

What did the court decide?

Mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal extended for a period of one year from the date of the order.

Aditya Birla Finance Limited Vs Presidium Educational Institution… — Arbitration | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~69

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 699/2024

¶4

ADITYA BIRLA FINANCE LIMITED .....Petitioner

¶5

Through: Ms. Nikita Rathi, Ms. Manvi Adlakha and Mr. Debrashi Dutta, Advocates.

¶6

versus

¶7

PRESIDIUM EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION PRIVATE LIMITED AND ORS. .....Respondents Through: (Appearance not given)

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD

¶10

O R D E R % 08.10.2024

¶11

This is a petition under Section 29A(4) read with Section 29A(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 for extension of the mandate of the learned Arbitral Tribunal presently in seisin of the disputes between the parties.

¶12

Of the nine respondents, Respondent No.4 has been proceeded exparte before the learned Arbitral Tribunal and has also not entered appearance before this Court.

¶13

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

¶14

It is seen that, on 16^th March 2023, the learned Arbitral Tribunal, taking into account all these facts, notes, in para 5, that the only surviving and contesting Respondent is Respondent No.5.

¶15

Learned Counsel for Respondent No.5 does not have any objection to

¶16

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 15/10/2024 at 12:04:27

¶17

extension of the mandate of the learned Arbitral Tribunal, however, 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. This Court is not entering into the said aspect.

¶18

Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner states that all the allegations made on the merits of the case against the Respondents be expunged.

¶19

Resultantly, other than those allegations which are relevant for extension of time, all the allegations made on the merits of the case against the Respondents are expunged.

¶20

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. 9. The court is only inclined to extend the mandate of the learned Arbitral Tribunal so that the dispute could arrive at a quietus. 10. Accordingly, the mandate of the learned Arbitral Tribunal shall stand extended by a period one year from today. The mandate shall be treated as continuing from 31^st August 2024 when it expired by efflux of time. 11. The petition stands allowed in the aforesaid terms.

¶21

SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J

¶22

OCTOBER 8, 2024 S. Zakir

¶23

This is a digitally signed order.

¶24

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 15/10/2024 at 12:04:27

Aditya Birla Finance Limited v. Presidium Educational Institution Private Limited and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aditya Birla Finance Limited v. Presidium Educational Institution 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

Ktech Engineer Builders Co. Private Limited Vs Union of India

Icri Corporates Private Limited Vs Shooglo Network Private Limmited (Previously as Omg Network Private Limited)

M/S Power Mech Projects Limited Vs M/S NTPC Bhel Power Projects Private Limited

M/S Jai Hanuman Rice and General Mills & Anr. Vs M/S Kissandhan Agri Financial Services Private Limited

Panipat Jalandhar NH1 Tollway Pvt. Ltd. Vs National Highways Authority of India

Universal Agency Ramgarh Pvt. Ltd. Vs Prl Projects and Infrastructure Ltd.

Servo Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India through the Directorate of Procurement

M/S Pnsc Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India

Bharatiya Chaturdham Veda Bhawan Nyas Vs Innovative Project Management Services Private Limited

Intercontinental Hotels Group India Private Limited Vs Aakriti Hotels Private Limited

Sh. Rajesh Kumar Gupta Vs Sh. Rajender & Ors.

Pankaj Kumar Modi Vs State NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Seema Lal Vs Pawan Kumar Lal & Anr.

Mahesh Vs the State ( NCT of Delhi) through SHO of Police Station Crime Branch (Central)