Allowed

Sumridhi Aluminium Private Limited through Authorized Representative v. Asier Metals Private Limited through Managing Director

Delhi HC5 Mar 2025O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.)/206/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Delhi High Court allowed an application seeking extension of the arbitrator's mandate for nine months under Section 29A of the Arbitration Act, relying on Apex Court precedent regarding maintainability of such applications post-expiry.

What did the court decide?

Extension of the arbitrator's mandate for nine months and regularization of the period from 20.01.2025 till today.

Sumridhi Aluminium Private Limited through Authorized… — Arbitration | Delhi HC (2025)

¶1

$~30

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 206/2025

¶4

SUMRIDHI ALUMINIUM PRIVATE LIMITED THROUGH AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE ....Petitioner Through: Mr. Arav Kapoor and Ms. Mansha Gupta, Advocates

¶5

versus

¶6

ASIER METALS PRIVATE LIMITED THROUGH MANAGING DIRECTOR .....Respondent Through: Mr. Mohit Chaudhary Kunal Sachdeva, Mr. Raghav Dikhsit, Ms. Nimmi Babu, Advocates

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD

¶9

O R D E R

¶10

% 05.03.2025

¶11

I.A. 5913/2025 (Exemption)

¶12

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶13

O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 206/2025

¶14

This is a petition under Section 29A (4) & (5) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act seeking extension of the mandate of the learned Arbitrator for a period of nine months to conclude the arbitration proceedings.

¶15

It is stated that disputes arose between the parties under the contract dated 27.09.2021. It is stated that this Court vide Order dated 18.08.2022 passed in ARB. P. 217/2022 appointed a Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes between the parties.

¶16

It is stated that pleadings were completed on 20.07.2023 and the period of one year from the date of completion of pleadings came to an end

¶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

on 20.07.2024. It is stated that the mandate of the Arbitrator was extended for a period of six months by mutual consent of the parties which has come to an end on 20.01.2025. It is stated that the matter is at the stage of Respondent’s evidence.

¶19

It is stated that since the mandate of the Arbitrator has come to an end on 20.01.2025, 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 Respondent’s evidence, this Court is inclined to extend the mandate of the Arbitrator for a period of nine months from today to enable the learned Arbitrator to proceed further and conclude the arbitration proceedings. Further, the period from 20.01.2025 till today is regularized.

¶23

The petition is disposed of along with pending application(s), if any.

¶24

SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J

¶25

MARCH 5, 2025 hsk

¶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 10/03/2025 at 12:25:01

Sumridhi Aluminium Private Limited through Authorized Representative v. Asier Metals Private Limited through Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sumridhi Aluminium Private Limited through Authorized Representative v. Asier Metals Private Limited through Managing Director

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

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

M/S Manraj Enterprises Vs Union of India

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