Allowed

Uma Shankar Shukla Proprietor of Bol India Bol v. Bharti Airtel Limited

Delhi HC10 Sept 2024O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.)/703/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Four petitions sought extension of the mandate of a three-member arbitral tribunal adjudicating disputes under four service agreements. Pleadings were complete since 2017 and evidence remained unfinished. With parties' consent, the court extended the tribunal's mandate for one year and urged completion of evidence by end-2024.

What did the court decide?

Mandate of the arbitral tribunal extended for one year; exemption applications disposed.

Uma Shankar Shukla Proprietor of Bol India Bol Vs Bharti Airtel… — Arbitration | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~36 to 39

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 702/2024 NAYSA VAS INDIA COMMUNICATIONS PRIVATE LIMITED .....Petitioner

¶4

versus BHARTI AIRTEL LIMITED .....Respondent + O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 703/2024 UMA SHANKAR SHUKLA PROPRIETOR OF BOL INDIA BOL .....Petitioner versus BHARTI AIRTEL LIMITED .....Respondent + O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 704/2024 SIESTA COMMUNICATIONS PRIVATE LIMITED.....Petitioner versus BHARTI AIRTEL LIMITED .....Respondent

¶5

O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 707/2024 VAS INDIA COMMUNICATIONS PRIVATE LIMITED .....Petitioner

¶6

versus

¶7

BHARTI AIRTEL LIMITED .....Respondent Appearance:- Mr. Tarun Sharma, Mr. Manek Sharma & Mr. Abid Ali, Advocates for Petitioners in Item Nos. 36 to 39. Mr. Shailesh K. Kapoor, Ms. Suruchi Thapar, Ms. Anukriti Dua, Ms. Sakshi Chaturvedi, Ms. Shoriya Bakshi & Mr. Ajay Kumar, Advocates for Respondent-Bharti Airtel Limited in Item Nos. 36 to 39.

¶8

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN

¶9

O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 702/2024 & Connected Matters

¶10

Page 1 of 3

¶11

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 03/07/2025 at 04:23:14

¶12

¶13

O R D E R 10.09.2024

¶14

I.A. 38915/2024 ( Exemption ) in O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 702/2024 I.A. 38916/2024 ( Exemption ) in O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 703/2024 I.A. 38917/2024 ( Exemption ) in O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 704/2024 I.A. 38933/2024 ( Exemption ) in O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 707/2024

¶15

Exemptions allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶16

The applications stand disposed of.

¶17

O.M.P. (MISC.) (COMM.) 702/2024, O.M.P. (MISC.) (COMM.) 703/2024, O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.)704/2024andO.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.)707/2024

¶18

These four petitions under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [“the Act”] have been filed for extension of the mandate of the three-member arbitral tribunal, which is in seisin of disputes between the parties under four service agreements dated 04.05.2015, 23.09.2014, 01.05.2015 and 19.03.2014, respectively.

¶19

The tribunal was constituted by orders dated 22.11.2016 and 03.11.2016, passed by this Court under Section 11 of the Act. 3. The respondent in all four proceedings is common, and the petitioners are also group companies.

¶20

I am informed that pleadings were completed and the issues were framed in the arbitral proceedings in the year 2017. The tribunal was reconstituted in the year 2018, in view of the unfortunate demise of the erstwhile presiding arbitrator. The proceedings are currently at the stage of cross-examination of the sole witness of the petitioners/claimants.

¶21

Learned counsel for the parties state that the proceedings have been prolonged as no hearings were held during the COVID-19 period.

¶22

O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 702/2024 & Connected Matters

¶23

Page 2 of 3

¶24

¶25

Be that as it may, it is evident that seven years have now passed even after the framing of issues. An effort, therefore, has to be made to expedite the proceedings.

¶26

Learned counsel for the respondent states that she requires a further four sittings of two hours each to conclude the cross-examination of the witness of the petitioners/claimants. She thereafter proposes to lead the evidence of, at most, three witnesses, but will make an effort to curtail the number of witnesses. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that he will complete the cross-examination of the respondent’s witnesses in a maximum of two sessions each.

¶27

Having regard to these submissions, learned counsel for the parties may request the arbitral tribunal to fix the schedule for completion of evidence at its earliest convenience, and preferably complete the recording of evidence by 31.12.2024. The matter will thereafter be taken up for final arguments as expeditiously as convenient to the learned tribunal.

¶28

Learned counsel for both parties assure the Court that they will cooperate with the learned arbitral tribunal to ensure that the awards may be rendered within a period of one year from today.

¶29

Having regard to the above, and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the petitions are allowed and the mandate of the arbitral tribunal is extended for a period of one year from today.

¶30

The petitions are disposed of with the above observations.

¶31

PRATEEK JALAN, J

¶32

SEPTEMBER 10, 2024/ ‘pv’/

¶33

O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 702/2024 & Connected Matters

¶34

Page 3 of 3

¶35

Uma Shankar Shukla Proprietor of Bol India Bol v. Bharti Airtel Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Uma Shankar Shukla Proprietor of Bol India Bol v. Bharti Airtel Limited

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 Sudarshan Rao D through His Legal Heir Mummini Deepak Vs Gail India Limited

M/S Cse Infra Vs Union of India

Sarvesh Security Services Pvt. Ltd. through Its Authorized Signatory Col. Retd. Snp Singh Vs Institute of Human Behaviour and Allied Sciences

M/S Aom Advertising Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Delhi Transport Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. (Dtidcl)

Unicorn Medident Private Limited Vs Arora Promoters Private Limited

Ajay Gupta Vs Ashok Gupta & Ors.

M/S Madonnas Vs Asian Hotels (North) Ltd.

Cinepolis India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Alan Infratech Private Limited & Anr.

Moneywise Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs Sharma Diesel through Its Proprietor Sh Chintan Naithani and Anr.

State Trading Corporation of India Limited Vs Adani Enterprises Ltd. & Anr.

Ram Kripal Singh Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Vs Indian Institute of Management Ranchi & Anr.

M/S Sks Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. through Its Director Mr. Santosh Kumar Sharma Vs M/S Puna Hinda through Its Proprietor Mr. Puna Hinda

Deepayan Mohanty Vs Cargill India Private Ltd. & Ors.

Naysa Vas India Communications Private Limited Vs Bharti Airtel Limited