Allowed

Swastik Pipe Limited v. Madan Bassi Sole Proprietor of M/S Suraj Udyog

Delhi HC21 Apr 2025O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.)/301/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petition under Section 29A sought extension of the arbitrator's mandate in ongoing arbitration proceedings at final arguments stage. Respondent raised no objection. With parties' consent the Court extended the mandate by six months from 21.04.2025, regularised the intervening period, and allowed the petition.

What the court decided

AI extract

Swastik Pipe Limited Vs Madan Bassi Sole Proprietor of M/S Suraj… — Arbitration | Delhi HC (2025)

¶1

$~9

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 301/2025

¶4

SWASTIK PIPE LIMITED .....Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr. Sanjay Jain and Ms. Ankita Kedia, Advocates.

¶6

versus

¶7

MADAN BASSI SOLE PROPRIETOR OF M/S SURAJ UDYOG

¶8

.....Respondent

¶9

Through: Mr. Ravi Ranjan, Advocate.

¶10

CORAM:

¶11

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH

¶12

O R D E R % 21.04.2025

¶13

I.A. 8598/2025

¶14

This is an application preferred on behalf of the Petitioner seeking condonation of delay of 49 days in re-filing the petition.

¶15

Mr. Ravi Ranjan, learned counsel enters appearance on behalf of the Respondent and accepts notice.

¶16

For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and disposed of, condoning the delay of 49 days.

¶17

O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 301/2025

¶18

This petition is preferred on behalf of the Petitioner under Section 29A (4) and (5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘1996 Act’) seeking extension of mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal by a period of 06 months.

¶19

Disputes having arisen between the parties in relation to certain

¶20

Page 1 of 3

¶21

O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 301/2025

¶22

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 01/07/2025 at 16:32:30

¶23

Purchase Orders-cum-Tax Invoices executed between the parties on 23.11.2018 along with Debit Notes dated 26.12.2019, Petitioner invoked Clause 2 which contained the Arbitration Agreement and sought appointment of an Arbitrator. Respondent failed to respond and Petitioner filed Arb. P. 181/2020 before this Court which was allowed vide order dated 07.01.2022 appointing a Sole Arbitrator. Learned Arbitrator entered upon reference on 15.06.2022 and after completion of pleadings, issues were framed and Petitioner filed list of witnesses along with evidence affidavit on 30.08.2022.

¶24

It is stated in the petition that on 14.11.2022, statement of CW-1 was recorded and he was cross-examined. On 10.03.2023, Petitioner filed evidence by way of affidavit of CW-2. Statement of CW-3 was recorded on 14.04.2023 and he was cross-examined. By mutual consent, parties extended the mandate of the Arbitrator by six months on 14.04.2023. Thereafter, two more witnesses of the Petitioner were examined and Petitioner filed a petition under Section 29A of the 1996 Act seeking extension of the mandate. By order dated 12.03.2024, in O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 198/2024, mandate of the Arbitrator was extended by six months w.e.f. 28.01.2024. It is the case of the Petitioner that the arbitration proceedings are at the stage of final arguments and therefore extension is sought.

¶25

Mr. Ravi Ranjan, learned counsel enters appearance on behalf of the Respondent and accepts notice. On instructions, it is submitted that Respondent has no objection to the extension of mandate of the learned Arbitrator.

¶26

With the consent of the parties, mandate of the learned Arbitrator is extended by a period of six months from 21.04.2025 and period between

¶27

Page 2 of 3

¶28

O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 301/2025

¶29

¶30

29.07.2024 to 20.04.2025 is regularised. Learned Arbitrator is requested to complete the proceedings and pass and publish the award as expeditiously as possible.

¶31

Petition is allowed and disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶32

JYOTI SINGH, J

¶33

APRIL 21, 2025/shivam

¶34

Page 3 of 3

¶35

O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 301/2025

¶36

Swastik Pipe Limited v. Madan Bassi Sole Proprietor of M/S Suraj Udyog

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Swastik Pipe Limited v. Madan Bassi Sole Proprietor of M/S Suraj Udyog

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hero Motocorp Limited Vs M/S Swift Motors & Ors.

Bhaskar Industries Private Ltd. & Anr. Vs National Textile Corporation Limited & Anr.

Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. Vs Spml Infra Limited

Mahaveer Singh Rajawat Vs Radha Sarweshwar Marble and Granite & Ors.

Bajaj Finance Limited Vs Raghvendra Singhania & Ors.

Reinforced Earth India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Sspl-Pioneer(Jv)

Mr. Mohan Lal Fatehpuria Vs M/S. Bharat Textiles & Ors.

Swadeshi Civil Infrastructure Private Limited Vs the Additional Director General Region Delhi Cpwd

Bhaskar Industries Private Ltd. & Anr. Vs National Textile Corporation Limited & Anr.

Mahaveer Singh Rajawat Vs Radha Sarweshwar Marble and Granite & Ors.

Ashwani Garg Vs Delhi Tourism and Transportation Development Corporation Ltd.

M/S Sam Surveyors and Adjusters Vs the Executive Director Area II Container Corporation of India Ltd.

Siddhast Intellectual Property Innovations Pvt. Ltd. Vs Controller General of Patents Designs and Trademark (Cgpdtm) and Anr.

Shapoorji Pallonji and Company Private Limited Vs Union of India