Disposed

Pramod Kumar Goel v. Delhi Development Authority

Delhi HC21 Jan 2025O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.)/536/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Arbitration between a contractor and DDA over construction of MIG houses; the arbitral tribunal's extended mandate had expired with arguments nearly complete. The Court regularised time from June 2023 to January 2024 and extended the tribunal's mandate by one year to pronounce the award.

What did the court decide?

Time regularised from June 2023 to January 2024; mandate of Arbitral Tribunal extended for one year, award to be pronounced on or before 21.01.2026.

Pramod Kumar Goel Vs Delhi Development Authority — Arbitration | Delhi HC (2025)

¶1

$~46

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 536/2023 & I.A. 21020/2023

¶4

PRAMOD KUMAR GOEL .....Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr. Bhupesh Narula, Advocate.

¶6

versus

¶7

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY .....Respondent Through: Mr. Anish Dhingra, Advocate.

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD

¶10

O R D E R % 21.01.2025

¶11

This Petition under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has been filed by the Petitioner for extending the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal.

¶12

Material on record indicates that the Petitioner had approached this Court by filing a petition being ARB.P. 188/2021 for appointment of an Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes which had arisen between the parties under a tender floated by the Respondent for construction of 20 MIG houses at Ashok Nagar along Faiz Road, Delhi and this Court vide Order dated 12.07.2021 had constituted an Arbitral Tribunal. Material on record indicates that pleadings stood completed and the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal was extended with the consent of both the parties by six months which has expired on 27.08.2023.

¶13

It is stated that the Petitioner had filed the present petition on 16.10.2023. However, unfortunately, the matter could not be taken up for

¶14

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 28/01/2025 at 14:26:51

¶15

hearing since then.

¶16

Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent/DDA states that he has no objection to the extension of mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal.

¶17

It is stated that at the time when the extension of mandate was sought, the claimant had completed its arguments and the Respondent was about to complete its arguments.

¶18

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.

¶19

Since substantial amount of money and time has been spent in the arbitration proceedings, this Court is inclined to regularize the time from June, 2023 to January, 2024 and further inclined to extend the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal for a period of one year from today, so that the award can be pronounced. The Arbitral Tribunal is requested to hear and pronounce the Award on or before 21.01.2026.

¶20

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

¶21

SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J

¶22

JANUARY 21, 2025 S. Zakir

¶23

This is a digitally signed order.

¶24

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 28/01/2025 at 14:26:51

Pramod Kumar Goel v. Delhi Development Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pramod Kumar Goel v. Delhi Development Authority

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

Larsen and Tiubro Vs Sinnar Thermal Power Limited & Anr.

Larsen and Tourbo Vs Elena Power and Infrastructure Limited & Anr.

Unique Commercial Private Limited Vs Union of India & Anr.

Shivpuja Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Vs Hdfc Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd.

Arun Kumar Vs the Indure Private Limited

M/S. Tata Aldesa (Jv)( LOT-103) Vs Mis. Dedicated Freight Corridor Corporation of India Limited (Dfccil)

Mr. Siddharth Kak and Anr. Vs National Skill Development Corporation

Brace Iron and Steel Private Limited Vs Tata Steel Limited

Larsen and Tiubro Vs Sinnar Thermal Power Limited & Anr.

Larsen and Tourbo Vs Elena Power and Infrastructure Limited & Anr.

Unique Commercial Private Limited Vs Union of India & Anr.

Coimbatore Refinishes Vs Akzo Noble India Ltd.

Multi Tv Tech Solution Pvt. Ltd. Vs Intex Technologies India Limited

Digital Radio (Delhi) Broadcasting Ltd. Vs Delhi Tourism and Transportation Development Corporation Ltd.