Delhivery Limited v. Transkart Logistics Priavte Limited

Delhi HC7 Aug 2025O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.)/554/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Delhi High Court O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 554/2025, Justice Jyoti Singh, 07.08.2025; Delhivery Limited v Transkart Logistics Priavte Limited; Section 29A (4) and (5) Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 extension of expired mandate of three-member Arbitral Tribunal; mandate expired 06.07.2025; proceedings at arguments stage; Respondent set ex parte by Tribunal vide order dated 26.07.2025; notice issued by High Court on 23.07.2025 admission hearing; mandate extended by six months; period 07.07.2025 to 06.08.2025 regularised; petition disposed of; counsel Naman Joshi and Aakash Deep Singh.

What did the court decide?

Extension of the mandate of the three-member Arbitral Tribunal by a period of six months from 07.08.2025, and regularisation of the period between 07.07.2025 and 06.08.2025. ¶¶20

Delhivery Limited Vs Transkart Logistics Priavte Limited — Arbitration | Delhi HC (2025)

¶1

$~14

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 554/2025

¶4

DELHIVERY LIMITED .....Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr. Naman Joshi and Mr. Aakash Deep Singh, Advocates.

¶6

versus

¶7

TRANSKART LOGISTICS PRIAVTE LIMITED.....Respondent Through: None.

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH

¶10

O R D E R

¶11

% 07.08.2025

¶12

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 three-member Arbitral Tribunal.

¶13

On 23.07.2025, when the petition came up for admission, Court was informed by counsel for the Petitioner that while Respondent had appeared before the Arbitral Tribunal at the initial stage, however, subsequently there was no appearance and its right to file Statement of Defence was closed. Considering that no formal order was passed by the Arbitral Tribunal setting the Respondent ex parte, in the interest of justice, Court had issued notice to the Respondent.

¶14

Learned counsel for the Petitioner informs the Court that vide order dated 26.07.2025, Respondent has been set ex parte by the Arbitral Tribunal and hands over a copy of the order, which is taken on record.

¶15

O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 554/2025

¶16

Page 1 of 2

¶17

This is a digitally signed order.

¶18

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 11/08/2025 at 12:32:10

¶19

It is evident from the order of the Arbitral Tribunal passed on 26.07.2025 that arbitral proceedings are at the stage of arguments. Mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal has expired on 06.07.2025. Accordingly, mandate is extended by a period of six months from today and period between 07.07.2025 to 06.08.2025 is regularised.

¶20

Petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶21

JYOTI SINGH, J

¶22

AUGUST 7, 2025/ YA/RW/Shivam

¶23

O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 554/2025

¶24

Page 2 of 2

¶25

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 11/08/2025 at 12:32:10

Delhivery Limited v. Transkart Logistics Priavte Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Delhivery Limited v. Transkart Logistics Priavte Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Redcliff Lifetech Pvt. Ltd. Vs Dr. Rahul Goyal, Proprietor M/S All Safe Laboratories

M/S Repl-Kcpl (Jv) through Its Authorized Representative Vinod Kumar Vs Union of India & Anr.

VK1 Expressway Limited Vs National Highways Authority of India

M/S Pink City Expressway Pvt. Ltd. Vs National Highway Authority of India

Skyline Engineering Contracts (India) Private Limited Vs Orchid Infrastructure Developers Private Limited

Glossica Laminates LLP Vs Hcl Technologies Ltd.

Central Warehousing Cororation Vs M/S Hind Terminals Private Limited

Era Infra Engineering Limited Vs NTPC Limited

M/S Mili Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Ambience Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

Hindustan Construction Company Ltd. Vs Nhpc Ltd.

Bisotech India Private Limited Vs Indian Highways Management Company Limited

Goel Construction Co. Throgh Its Sole Proprietor Lalit Kumar Goel Vs Union of India Ministry of Railways through General Manager Northern Railway

Moneywise Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs Jn Robotic Automation Pvt. Ltd. through Its Directors and Ors.

Ishwar Singh Vs Pawan Kumar & Ors.