Allowed¶¶21

Krishan Kumar Dhoot v. Shou Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

Arbitration – Extension of mandate

Delhi HC13 Aug 2025O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.)/616/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Delhi High Court, O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 616/2025, Krishan Kumar Dhoot v. Shou Hospitality Pvt. Ltd & Anr., Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, 13.08.2025. Extension of arbitrator's mandate under arbitral proceedings referred to DIAC; mandate expired 11.10.2024; earlier extension petition before Commercial Court-01, Patiala House Courts dismissed 17.07.2025; delay condoned in substance; mandate extended six months; intervening period regularised; petitioner a micro small scale enterprise under MSMED Act 2006.

What did the court decide?

Mandate of the arbitrator extended for six months from 13.08.2025; the period between 11.10.2024 and the date of the order regularised; petition subsequently disposed of. ¶¶21

Krishan Kumar Dhoot Vs Shou Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. — Arbitration | Delhi HC (2025)

¶1

$~O-54

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 616/2025

¶4

KRISHAN KUMAR DHOOT .....Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr. Shrey Chathly, Adv.

¶6

versus

¶7

SHOU HOSPITALITY PVT. LTD & ANR. .....Respondents

¶8

Through: Mr. Mukul Malik and Mr. Vaibhav Singla, Advs.

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV O R D E R

¶11

% 13.08.2025

¶12

Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.

¶13

The facts of the case would indicate that the petitioner operates a micro small scale industry and is governed by the provisions of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006.

¶14

Some dispute has arisen between the parties herein, and the same was eventually referred to DIAC for appointment of an Arbitrator. In terms of the direction passed by the DIAC, an Arbitrator was appointed who was conducting the arbitration proceedings. The mandate of the arbitrator, however, expired on 11.10.2024.

¶15

The petitioner, thereafter, had inadvertently approached the Court of District Judge (Commercial Court-01), Patiala House Courts, New Delhi for extension of the mandate. The said petition was dismissed on 17.07.2025 and it is thereafter that the petitioner has filed the instant petition.

¶16

Learned counsel appearing for the respondents has raised an objection

¶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 20/08/2025 at 12:29:53

¶19

that the initial petition before the Patiala House Courts itself was, with a delay of about 48 days. The instant petition, as well has been filed with substantial delay.

¶20

Having considered the aforesaid submissions, the Court finds that in the interest of justice, the mandate of the Arbitrator needs to be extended. 7. The Court will have to bear in its mind that the petitioner is a micro small scale industry and the petitioner has proactively taken steps for getting the term of the mediator extended. He filed a petition for extension of the mandate in the month of October 2024 itself, and immediately after its dismissal on 17.07.2025, the instant petition came to be presented by the petitioner on 22.07.2025. Since the matter remained in defects, therefore, it is first time listed on 01.08.2025.

¶21

Under these circumstances, the petition stands allowed and the mandate of the arbitrator stands extended for a period of six months from today. The period between 11.10.2024 till today stands regularised.

¶22

The petition stands disposed of.

¶23

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J

¶24

AUGUST 13, 2025/P/AMG

¶25

This is a digitally signed order.

¶26

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 20/08/2025 at 12:29:53

Krishan Kumar Dhoot v. Shou Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishan Kumar Dhoot v. Shou Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

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

Sps Construction India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Steel Authority of India Ltd. through Its Managing Director & Anr.

M/S Solapur Yedeshi Tollway Ltd. Vs National Highways Authority of India

Kcc Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. Vs Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Rajesh Gupta Vs Oyo Hotels and Homes Pvt. Ltd.

Johnson Controls Hitachi Air Conditioning India Ltd. Vs Mahamaya Infrastructure Private Ltd.

M/S Wave Geo-Services Private Limited Vs M/S Devi Engineering and Constructions Private Limited

G. R Infra Project Limited Vs National Highways Authority of India

M/S Man Bhawan Garments Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ankit Khilwani

Axis Finance Limited Vs Padmanabha Prasad Chakradhara Venkata Sanka & Ors.

Sps Construction India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Steel Authority of India Ltd. through Its Managing Director & Anr.

M/S. Index Logistics Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S. Icon Express & Ors.

Amitabh Nangia Vs the State NCT of Delhi & Ors.

M/S Wave Geo-Services Private Limited Vs M/S Devi Engineering and Constructions Private Limited

Nambi Buildwell Limited & Anr. Vs Nisan Hospitality Ventures LLP & Ors.