Allowed

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

Delhi HC10 Feb 2025O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.)/15/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petition under Section 29(A)(4)&(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act sought a six-month extension of the arbitral mandate after its expiry on 31.12.2024. With the respondent's no objection, the court allowed the petition, extended the mandate for six months from 01.01.2025, and validated post-expiry proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Mandate of Arbitral Tribunal extended for 6 months from 01.01.2025; post-expiry proceedings validated.

Ss Supply Chain Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs Okaya Power Pvt. Ltd. — Arbitration | Delhi HC (2025)

¶1

$~21

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 15/2025

¶4

SS SUPPLY CHAIN SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Advocate

¶5

versus

¶6

OKAYA POWER PVT. LTD. .....Respondent Through: Mr.Achin Mittal, Advocate

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI O R D E R % 10.02.2025

¶9

I.A. 352/2025 (exemption)

¶10

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶11

The application stands disposed of.

¶12

I.A. 353/2025 (delay)

¶13

By way of present application, the petitioner/applicant seeks condonation of delay of 6 days in filing the petition.

¶14

For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and the delay of 6 days in filing the petition is condoned.

¶15

In view of the above, the application stands disposed of.

¶16

O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 15/2025

¶17

By way of the present petition filed under Section 29(A) (4) & (5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the petitioner seeks extension of the mandate of Arbitral Tribunal for a period of six months for concluding the Arbitral proceedings and passing of the Award.

¶18

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 12:50:05

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal has expired on 31.12.2024.

¶20

Issue notice.

¶21

Learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondents on advance copy, accepts notice and submits that the respondent has no objection to the prayer made in the petition.

¶22

Considering the aforesaid request and the no objection given by the other side, the present petition is allowed and the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal for passing of the award is extended for a period of 6 months, with effect from 01.01.2025. It is further observed that proceedings conducted after the expiry of the mandate, if any, shall also stand validated and regularised.

¶23

Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of.

¶24

MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J

¶25

FEBRUARY 10, 2025

¶26

¶27

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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

Guruvayoor Infrastructure Private Limited Vs National Highway Authority of India

Promac Engineering Industries Ltd. Vs Cement Corporation of India Ltd.

S K Integrated Consultants Vs Dayal Singh College and Anr.

M S Adesh Borewell and Engineering Service Vs Central Ground Water Board

Akasa Finance Limited Vs Sai Precious Traexim Private Limited & Anr.

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

Rishi Malhotra Vs Blue Coast Infrastructure Development Pvt. Ltd. Anr.

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

Promac Engineering Industries Ltd. Vs Cement Corporation of India Ltd.

M/S Sopan Restaurant Vs Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation

M/S Ramacivil India Construction Pvt. Ltd. Vs Delhi State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd.

De Dietrich Process Systems India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Intech Brinechem Ltd.

Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd. Vs Sunil Kumar Aggarwal and Anr.

Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd. Vs Hiriyappa D.B. and Anr.