Transnational Shipping India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Khanij Impex and Ors. — Arbitration | Delhi HC (2025)

Transnational Shipping India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Khanij Impex and Ors. — Arbitration | Delhi HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Extension of the mandate of the learned Arbitrator by two months from 23.05.2025, with regularisation of the intervening period between 01.05.2025 and 22.05.2025.

Issue for consideration

Whether the mandate of the learned Arbitrator should be extended under Section 29A(4) and (5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. +1 more

Court's answer

The petition is allowed: the mandate of the learned Arbitrator is extended by a period of two months from 23.05.2025, and the period between 01.05.2025 and 22.05.2025 is regularised.

Ratio / Principle

At the stage of a petition for extension of the arbitrator's mandate under Section 29A(4) and (5) of the 1996 Act, it is not open to the Court to go into the issue of the existence of the arbitration agreement, once a prima facie view has already been taken in the petition under Section 11(6) of the 1996 Act.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (Jyoti Singh, J.), O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 409/2025, order dated 23.05.2025: Petition by Transnational Shipping India Pvt. Ltd. under Section 29A(4) and (5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking extension of the arbitrator's mandate. Respondents Nos. 1 and 3 opposed the extension on the ground that they had not signed the arbitration agreement. Rejecting the objection, the Court held that at the stage of a Section 29A(4) and (5) extension petition it is not open to the Court to go into the issue of existence of the arbitration agreement, once a prima facie view (signatures on indemnity bonds duly attested by bankers) had already been taken while appointing the arbitrator in ARB. P. 46/2021 under Section 11(6), vide order dated 11.10.2021. The mandate — previously extended up to 30.04.2025 by order dated 07.11.2024 in O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 866/2024 — was extended by two months from 23.05.2025 and the period between 01.05.2025 and 22.05.2025 was regularised. I.A. 13125/2025 was allowed subject to all just exceptions and disposed of. Proceedings were noted to be at the stage of rejoinder arguments (scheduled 27.05.2025), with Respondent No. 2 proceeded ex parte.

$~78

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 409/2025 TRANSNATIONAL SHIPPING INDIA PVT. LTD. .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Akriti Chaubey, Advocate. versus KHANIJ IMPEX AND ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Saket Gogia, Ms. Sheetal Maggon and Mr. Man Singh, Advocates for R-1 and R-3.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH O R D E R

% 23.05.2025

I.A. 13125/2025

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

Application stands disposed of.

O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 409/2025

This petition is filed on behalf of the Petitioner under Section 29A (4) and (5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘1996 Act’) seeking extension of the mandate of the learned Arbitrator.

Disputes having arisen between the parties, Petitioner approached this Court in ARB. P. 46/2021 seeking appointment of a Sole Arbitrator, which was allowed vide order dated 11.10.2021 appointing a Sole Arbitrator. Mandate of the Arbitrator was extended from time to time by this Court and lastly, by order dated 07.11.2024 in O.M.P. (MISC.) (COMM.) 866/2024 upto 30.04.2025. It is stated that arbitral proceedings are at the stage of rejoinder arguments of the claimants, which are scheduled for 27.05.2025.

Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that Respondent No. 2 is proceeded ex parte before the learned Arbitrator and Respondent No. 1 had

Page 1 of 2

O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 409/2025

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 16:29:54

lastly argued the matter on 09.05.2025 and can have no objection to the extension of the mandate.

Issue notice.

Mr. Saket Gogia, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of Respondents No. 1 and 3 and opposes the petition on the ground that Respondents have not signed the arbitration agreement.

Heard learned counsels for the parties.

The learned Arbitrator was appointed by this Court on 11.10.2021 in a petition filed by the petitioner under Section 11(6) of 1996 Act. As the order reflects that Respondents had disputed the signatures on the indemnity bonds. This contention was negated on a prima facie view that indemnity bonds bear the signatures of the Respondents, which have been duly attested by their bankers. Taking this view, the petition was allowed appointing the Arbitrator. Proceedings have continued since then and are at the stage of rejoinder arguments of the Petitioner. At this stage in this petition, it is not open to this Court to go into the issue of existence of the arbitration agreement, once a prima facie view is taken in the petition under Section 11(6) of 1996 Act.

Accordingly, this petition is allowed, extending the mandate of the learned Arbitrator by a period of two months from 23.05.2025 and the period between 01.05.2025 to 22.05.2025 is regularised. 11. Petition stands disposed of.

JYOTI SINGH, J

MAY 23, 2025/shivam/sahil

Page 2 of 2

O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 409/2025

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 16:29:54