Allowed¶20

Hiranand Kishinchand Gangwani v. Oyo Apartment Investment LLP

Delhi HC20 Mar 2025O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.)/253/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Delhi High Court, O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 253/2025, decided 20.03.2025 by Justice Subramonium Prasad. Keywords: Section 29A(4); Section 29A(5); Arbitration & Conciliation Act 1996; extension of mandate of Arbitrator/Sole Arbitrator; time limit for arbitral award; maintainability of S.29A(4) application after expiry of twelve-month/six-month period; regularization of mandate; Rohan Builders v. Berger Paints 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2494; OYO Apartment Investment LLP; no objection by respondent; award expected by 30.11.2025.

What did the court decide?

Mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal regularized up to 20.03.2025 and extended till 30.11.2025 for pronouncement of the award; petition disposed of along with pending applications, if any. I.A. 7173/2025 (Exemption) also allowed subject to all just exceptions. ¶20

Hiranand Kishinchand Gangwani Vs Oyo Apartment Investment LLP — Arbitration | Delhi HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶20

Issue for consideration

Whether the mandate of the learned Sole Arbitrator, which had been extended till 04.03.2025 and had thereafter run out, should be further extended under Section 29A(4) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 so that the Arbitral Tribunal, then at the stage of final arguments, could pronounce the award.

¶17

Court's answer

Since the arbitration was at an advanced stage, the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal was regularized up to the date of the order (20.03.2025) and extended till 30.11.2025 so that the award could be pronounced.

¶20

Ratio / Principle

Consistent with the Apex Court's decision in Rohan Builders (India) Private Limited v. Berger Paints India Limited, an application under Section 29A(4) read with Section 29A(5) for extension of time to pass the award is maintainable even after expiry of the twelve-month or extended six-month period; accordingly, the present petition filed after lapse of the extended period (04.03.2025) was entertained and allowed.

¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 — S. 29A(4)/(5) — Extension of mandate of Arbitral Tribunal after expiry of statutory/extended period. Petition by Hiranand Kishinchand Gangwani under Section 29A(4) seeking extension of the Sole Arbitrator's mandate in disputes with OYO Apartment Investment LLP. Tribunal constituted 11.10.2021; mandate earlier extended by consent and by Orders dated 29.04.2024 (till 16.08.2024) and 05.09.2024 (till 04.03.2025); matter at final arguments. Relying on Rohan Builders (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Berger Paints India Ltd., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2494 (application under S.29A(4) r/w S.29A(5) maintainable even after expiry of the period), the Court (Subramonium Prasad, J., 20.03.2025) regularized the mandate till the date of the order and extended it till 30.11.2025 for pronouncement of the award; respondent raised no objection. Petition disposed of with pending applications, if any; exemption application (I.A. 7173/2025) allowed subject to just exceptions.

¶1

$~54

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 253/2025

¶4

HIRANAND KISHINCHAND GANGWANI .....Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr. Rishi Bhatnagar and Mr. Riishabh Gaur, Advocates

¶6

versus

¶7

OYO APARTMENT INVESTMENT LLP .....Respondent Through: Mr. Harsh Prakash, Advocate

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD

¶9

O R D E R

¶10

% 20.03.2025

¶11

I.A. 7173/2025 (Exemption)

¶12

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶13

O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 253/2025

¶14

This is a petition under Section 29A (4) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking extension of mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal for making the arbitral award.

¶15

Material on record discloses that this Court vide Order dated 11.10.2021 constituted the Arbitral Tribunal to adjudicate on the disputes between the parties. Pleadings were completed and on expiry of the one year period, the parties mutually extended the mandate of the Arbitrator by six months. Thereafter, the parties approached this Court by filing O.M.P. (MISC.) (COMM.) 325 of 2024 seeking extension of the mandate of the learned Sole Arbitrator. This Court vide Order dated 29.04.2024 extended

¶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 26/03/2025 at 14:03:37

¶17

the mandate of the learned Arbitrator by six months, i.e. till 16.08.2024. Thereafter, the parties once again approached this Court by filing O.M.P. (MISC.) (COMM.) 685 of 2024 seeking extension of the mandate of the learned Sole Arbitrator. This Court vide Order dated 05.09.2024 extended the mandate of the learned Arbitrator by six months, i.e. till 04.03.2025. It is stated that matter is at the stage of final arguments. The Petitioner has, therefore, approached this Court seeking extension of the mandate of the Arbitrator.

¶18

Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent on advance notice states that the Respondent does not have any objection to the present Petition.

¶19

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.

¶20

In view of the fact that the matter is at an advance stage, this Court is inclined to regularize the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal till today and extend the mandate till 30.11.2025 so that the Award can be pronounced.

¶21

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

¶22

SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J

¶23

MARCH 20, 2025 Rahul

¶24

Hiranand Kishinchand Gangwani v. Oyo Apartment Investment LLP

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hiranand Kishinchand Gangwani v. Oyo Apartment Investment LLP

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

M/S Bilaspur Pathrapali Road Pvt. Ltd. Vs National Highways Authority of India

Union of India through the Development Commissioner and Anr. Vs M/S. Saket Infradevelopers Pvt. Ltd. .

M/S Sai Boda Hotels Rep. by Its Mg Partner, Mr. Raviraj Boda Vs M/S Oyo Hotels and Homes Pvt. Ltd.

Malhotra Enterprises Vs Ericsson India Private Limited

Amit Engineers Vs Chief Rolling Stock Engineering(Coaching) Northern Railway

S Kumar Construction Vs General Manager Telephone Department

M/S Eterno Constructions Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs M/S Jito Administrative Training Foundation

Varun Gupta Vs Union of India through Cpwd & Anr.

S.R Rising Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Tdi Infrastructure Ltd.

Shakti Pump India Ltd. Vs Apex Buildsys Ltd.

M/S. Singh Finlease Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S. Jai Baba Mohan Ram Transport & Ors.

South Delhi Municipal Corporation Vs Aerostral Air Services Pvt. Ltd.

Jsp Projects Pvt. Ltd. in Joint Venture With Varaha Infra Ltd. Vs Union of India

Centre for Indian Classical Dance Vs Pujas Shilpkala Pvt. Ltd.