Petition for extension of the arbitral tribunal's mandate arising from disputes under an Agreement to Sell, with all respondents consenting. The mandate, previously extended several times, was extended for three months from 01.09.2024.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~40
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
BDR BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Akhil Sachar, Advocate.
versus
SHRI MUKESH KUMAR GUPTA (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES AND ORS
.....Respondent Through: Mr. Ranjit Singh Sahni, Advocate.
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN
O R D E R % 17.09.2024
O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 724/2024
Page 1 of 2
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 04:22:43
PRATEEK JALAN, J
SEPTEMBER 17, 2024/ MR/
Page 2 of 2
O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 724/2024
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 04:22:43
1 issue framed by the court
Should the mandate of the arbitral tribunal be extended under Section 29A to enable completion and delivery of the award?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
BDR Builders and Developers Private Limited
Shri Mukesh Kumar Gupta (since deceased) through legal representatives
Prateek Jalan
As recorded by the court registry
A miscellaneous application in an arbitration matter, commonly seeking extension of the arbitral tribunal's mandate under Section 29A.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
