Partly allowed

Gannon Dunkerley and Co. Ltd. v. National Highways and Infrastructure Development Corporation & Anr.

Delhi HC11 Feb 2025O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.)/133/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an original miscellaneous petition filed by Gannon Dunkerley and Co Ltd, the Delhi High Court, invoking Section 29A(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, extended the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal to 31.12.2025 to enable the pronouncement of the award.

What did the court decide?

Extended the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal till 31.12.2025 to allow the passing of the award.

Gannon Dunkerley and Co. Ltd. Vs National Highways and… — Arbitration | Delhi HC (2025)

¶1

$~46

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 133/2025

¶4

GANNON DUNKERLEY AND CO LTD .....Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr. Ashish Garg, Mr. Shubham Aggarwal (Advocates)

¶6

versus

¶7

NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Reema Khorana , Advocate, Mr. Vikash Kumar Advocate with Mr. Abhishek Namdev (Official) for R-1

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD

¶9

O R D E R % 11.02.2025

¶10

I.A. 3491/2025 (Exemption)

¶11

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶12

O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 133/2025

¶13

The instant petition under Section 29A(4) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 has been filed by the Petitioner seeking extension of the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal.

¶14

Material on record indicates that the disputes have arisen between the parties under the Supplementary Foreclosure Agreement dated 30.10.2021 executed between the Petitioner/Company and the Respondent No.1. It is stated that since the disputes have arisen between the parties, the Petitioner/Company vide notice dated 14.07.2022 invoked arbitration under Rule 4 of the Society for Affordable Redressal of Disputes Arbitration Rules

¶15

O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 133/2025 Page 1 of 2

¶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 13/02/2025 at 12:50:06

¶17

(SAROD) in terms of Clause 11 of the said Agreement. It is stated that vide notification dated 12.01.2023, learned Secretary to SAROD had constituted the Arbitral Tribunal for the adjudication of the disputes between the parties.

¶18

It is stated that the pleadings were completed on 10.07.2023. It is stated that the period of one year was sought on 09.07.2023 but before that date, the parties by mutual consent, extended the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal by six months. It is stated that since the mandate of the Tribunal has come to an end on 10.01.2025, the Petitioner has approached this Court seeking extension of the mandate of the Arbitrator for making the Award.

¶19

A perusal of the list of dates indicates that the examination of witnesses of the Claimants has concluded and the examination of Respondent witnesses is going on.

¶20

The Apex Court in Rohan Builders (India) Private Limited v. Berger Paints India Limited, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2494, has held that an application for extension of the time period for passing an arbitral award under Section 29A(4) read with Section 29A(5) is maintainable even after the expiry of the twelve-month or the extended six-month period, as the case may be.

¶21

In the facts and circumstance of this case, this Court is inclined to extend the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal till 31.12.2025 so that the Award can be pronounced.

¶22

The petition is disposed of along with the pending applications, if any.

¶23

SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J

¶24

FEBRUARY 11, 2025 RJ

¶25

O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 133/2025 Page 2 of 2

¶26

Gannon Dunkerley and Co. Ltd. v. National Highways and Infrastructure Development Corporation & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gannon Dunkerley and Co. Ltd. v. National Highways and Infrastructure Development Corporation & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ss Supply Chain Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs Okaya Power Pvt. Ltd.

Prakash Chand Goyal (Huf) Vs Sunil Walia

M/S Sri Balaji Projects Vs the Mother Dairy Employees C.G.H.S Ltd.

Randstad India Private Limited Vs Wheelseye Technology India Private Limited & Ors.

M/S Valley Telegence Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Rah Infotech Pvt. Ltd.

M/S Kbg Engineers Vs Delhi Tourism and Transportation Development Corporation Ltd.

M/S Oasis Projects Ltd. Vs National Highways and Infrastructure & Anr.

Mbl Infrastructure Ltd. Vs Pradeep Colonisers and Suppliers Pvt. Ltd.

Moneywise Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ss Hospitality through Its Proprietor Sh Saurabh Sabharwal and Anr.

Prakash Chand Goyal (Huf) Vs Sunil Walia

M/S Pretty Cosmo and Beauty Private Limited Vs Nipun Kataria and Anr.

Perfect Diesel Sales and Service & Anr. Vs Power Hf India Private Limited

M/S Mili Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Ambience Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

M/S Moran Plantations Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Ambience Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.