Disposed

Lotus Commercial India Pvt. Ltd. v. Naturoll Foods LLP

Delhi HC18 Aug 2025O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.)/134/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Sole arbitrator's mandate had expired after proceedings were adjourned sine die; petitioner sought extension citing delay from change of counsel. Court extended the arbitrator's mandate by six months, regularized the interim period subject to Rs. 50,000 costs, took an undertaking against further adjournments, and disposed of the petition.

What the court decided

AI extract

Lotus Commercial India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Naturoll Foods LLP — Arbitration | Delhi HC (2025)

¶1

$~O-58

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 134/2025

¶4

LOTUS COMMERCIAL INDIA PVT. LTD. .....Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr.Raghav Bhatia, Mr.Risabh Tiwari and Mr.Rohan Bhatia, Advocates.

¶6

versus

¶7

NATUROLL FOODS LLP .....Respondent

¶8

Through: Mr.Mukul Chandra, Advocate.

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV

¶11

O R D E R % 18.08.2025

¶12

Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.

¶13

The facts of the case indicate that the sole Arbitrator, by order dated 06.09.2024, adjourned the proceedings sine die , taking into consideration that the mandate for making the award had expired.

¶14

The record further shows that on 29.03.2023, this Court appointed a sole Arbitrator. Thereafter, the arbitration proceedings commenced, and pleadings were completed on 15.08.2023. Consequently, the award ought to have been passed within a period of twelve (12) months from the completion of pleadings.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, due to unavoidable circumstances and frequent changes of counsel, the petitioner was unable to extend necessary cooperation, resulting in a delay in the completion of the arbitration proceedings. However, he submits that the delay was

¶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 22/08/2025 at 12:23:08

¶17

unintentional and due to bona fide reasons. He therefore prays that, in the interest of justice and considering that the matter is presently at the stage of evidence, the mandate of the Arbitrator be extended for a further period of twelve (12) months.

¶18

In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance on the decisions of this Court in the cases of M/s RCC Infra Ventures Ltd. & Ors. vs. M/s DMI Finance Pvt. Ltd. & Ors¹ . and Iqbal Singh vs. Naresh Kumar² .

¶19

These submissions are strongly opposed by learned counsel for the respondent, who contends that the parties cannot be permitted to blame their counsel for their own negligence and carelessness. He refers to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Rajneesh Kumar and Another vs. Ved Prakash³ , wherein such a conduct has been strongly deprecated. He submits that, upon perusal of paragraphs 23 and 24 of the petition, it becomes evident that the delay has arisen by the petitioner’s own carelessness in prosecuting the matter.

¶20

He, therefore, submits that even if the Court if of the view that the mandate deserves to be extended, let the same be only for a period of six months subject to certain restrictions and conditions.

¶21

I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and also perused the record.

¶22

It is noted that the petitioner has already filed affidavits of evidence. The cross-examination of the petitioner’s witnesses remains to be conducted.

¶23

Though the petitioner attributes the delay to a change in counsel a

¶24

1 2024 SCC OnLine Del 8961

¶25

2 2023 SCC OnLine Del 7587

¶26

This is a digitally signed order.

¶27

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 22/08/2025 at 12:23:08

¶28

reason not fully accepted by the Court however considering the significant progress already made in the arbitration proceedings, and the resources already deployed by them, and also the stage at which the matter stands, it would be in the interest of justice to extend the mandate of the Arbitrator for a period of six (6) months from today.

¶29

The period from 15.08.2024 until today stands regularized. However, such regularization shall be subject to the payment of costs of Rs. 50,000/by the petitioner to the respondent.

¶30

The undertaking of the petitioner is taken on record who contends that henceforth no adjournment shall be sought on behalf of the petitioner. 13. With the aforesaid reasons and directions, the instant petition stands disposed of.

¶31

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J

¶32

AUGUST 18, 2025 Nc/sph

¶33

3 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3380

¶34

This is a digitally signed order.

¶35

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 22/08/2025 at 12:23:08

Lotus Commercial India Pvt. Ltd. v. Naturoll Foods LLP

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Lotus Commercial India Pvt. Ltd. v. Naturoll Foods LLP

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Johnson Controls Hitachi Air Conditioning India Ltd. Vs Mahamaya Infrastructure Private Ltd.

M/S Wave Geo-Services Private Limited Vs M/S Devi Engineering and Constructions Private Limited

G. R Infra Project Limited Vs National Highways Authority of India

M/S Man Bhawan Garments Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ankit Khilwani

Select Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs Advent Hospitality Pvt. Ltd.

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

M/S Patni Golden Transport Company Vs National Seeds Corporation Limited & Anr.

Glowsun Powergen Private Limited Vs Hammond Power Solutions Private Limited

M/S Wave Geo-Services Private Limited Vs M/S Devi Engineering and Constructions Private Limited

Nambi Buildwell Limited & Anr. Vs Nisan Hospitality Ventures LLP & Ors.

Amitabh Nangia Vs the State NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Aapka Humdum Solutions and Services LLP Vs Manojkumar Virupakshakheradka

Gail (India) Ltd. Vs Track Cargo Pvt. Ltd.

Sukhbir Singh & Ors. Vs Amit & Ors.