Disposed¶23

M/S Manraj Enterprises v. Union of India

Delhi HC5 Mar 2025O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.)/202/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 29A(4) & (5) Arbitration & Conciliation Act — extension of arbitrator's mandate after expiry; mandate extended till 28.02.2026; period from 02.03.2025 regularised; application under S.29A(4) r/w S.29A(5) maintainable post-expiry per Rohan Builders (India) Private Limited v. Berger Paints India Limited, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2494; Manraj Enterprises v. Union of India; O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 202/2025 & 203/2025; Delhi High Court; Subramonium Prasad J; order dated 05.03.2025; sole arbitrator entered reference 02.03.2023; six-month extension by mutual consent 09.08.2024; respondent conceded no objection.

What did the court decide?

Extension of the mandate of the Arbitrator till 28.02.2026, with the period from 02.03.2025 till the date of the order regularised; petitions disposed of along with pending application(s), if any. ¶23

M/S Manraj Enterprises Vs Union of India — Arbitration | Delhi HC (2025)

¶1

$~28 & 29

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 202/2025 & I.A. 5854/2025

¶4

M/S MANRAJ ENTERPRISES .....Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr. Vivekanand Adv versus

¶6

UNION OF INDIA .....Respondent Through: Mr. KL Janjani, Adv.

¶7

- O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 203/2025 & I.A. 5867/2025

¶8

M/S MANRAJ ENTERPRISES .....Petitioner

¶9

Through: Mr. Vivekanand Adv versus

¶10

UNION OF INDIA .....Respondent Through: Mr. KL Janjani, Adv.

¶11

CORAM:

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD

¶13

O R D E R % 05.03.2025

¶14

These petitions under Section 29A (4) & (5) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act have been filed by the Petitioner seeking extension of the mandate of the learned Arbitrator to conclude the arbitration proceedings and pass the arbitral award.

¶15

It is stated that disputes arose between the parties and a Sole Arbitrator was appointed to adjudicate upon the disputes between the parties.

¶16

The learned Arbitrator entered into reference on 02.03.2023. It is stated that pleadings were completed and the mandate of the Arbitrator was extended for a period of six months by mutual consent of the parties on

¶17

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 10/03/2025 at 12:25:01

¶18

09.08.2024. It is stated that the matter is at the stage of examination of Respondent’s witnesses.

¶19

It is stated that since the mandate of the Arbitrator has come to an end on 02.03.2025, the Petitioner has approached this Court seeking extension of mandate of the Arbitrator.

¶20

Learned Counsel for the Respondent states that the Respondent has no objection to the extension of mandate of the Arbitrator.

¶21

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.

¶22

In view of the fact that the matter is at the stage of examination of witnesses of the Respondent, this Court is inclined to extend the mandate of the Arbitrator till 28.02.2026 to enable the learned Arbitrator to proceed further and conclude the arbitration proceedings. Further, the period from 02.03.2025 till today is regularized.

¶23

The petitions are disposed of along with pending application(s), if any.

¶24

SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J

¶25

MARCH 5, 2025 hsk

¶26

M/S Manraj Enterprises v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Manraj Enterprises v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ms Mvv Water Utility Pvt. Ltd. Vs Delhi Jal Board

M S Tata Projects Limited Vs Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited

Punj Lloyd Ltd. Vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.

Cec-Cici Jv Vs Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Limited

M/S Dewan Chand Vs Union of India

Ebixcash Mobility Software India Limited Vs Delhi Transport Corporation

Metro Transit Pvt. Ltd. Vs Government of NCT of Delhi

Antony Road Transport Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs Government of NCT of Delhi

M/S Kotak Mahindra Prime Limited Vs Aryan Pharma & Anr.

Axis Finance Limited Vs Vikas Vijay Kumar Jain

M S Tata Projects Limited Vs Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited

M/S Manraj Enterprises Vs Union of India

Sumridhi Aluminium Private Limited through Authorized Representative Vs Asier Metals Private Limited through Managing Director

Shreeji Shipping Global Limited (Formerly Known as Shreeji Shipping Global Pvt. Ltd.) Vs Vedanta Limited