Disposed¶18

Ctrls Datacenters Limited v. All India Council for Technical Education

Delhi HC16 Sept 2025O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.)/709/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 29A Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996; extension of arbitrator's mandate after expiry; delay in pronouncement of arbitral award; regularization of period between expiry of mandate and pronouncement; GL Litmus Events Pvt. Ltd. v. Delhi Development Authority distinguished; arguments concluded within mandate; Delhi High Court; O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 709/2025; Ctrls Datacenters Limited v. All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE).

What did the court decide?

Mandate of the Arbitrator extended from 28.10.2024 to 20.08.2025; petition disposed of along with all pending application(s). ¶18

Ctrls Datacenters Limited Vs All India Council for Technical… — Arbitration | Delhi HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Mandate of the Arbitrator extended from 28.10.2024 to 20.08.2025; petition disposed of along with all pending application(s).

¶18

Issue for consideration

Whether the mandate of the Arbitrator, which expired on 28.10.2024, should be extended notwithstanding that the petition under Section 29A was filed only on 20.08.2025. +1 more

¶6

Court's answer

The Court extended the mandate of the Arbitrator from 28.10.2024 to 20.08.2025, regularizing the period between the expiry of the mandate and the filing of the petition.

¶17

Ratio / Principle

The decision in GL Litmus Events Pvt. Ltd. v. Delhi Development Authority, relied upon by the respondent, concerns a situation where the award itself was pronounced after expiry of the mandate; it will have no application to a case where the Court regularizes the period between expiry of the mandate and pronouncement of the award.

¶15

Key takeaways

Since the arguments were concluded on 28.05.2024, well within the mandate, nothing further lay in the petitioner's hands to conclude the arbitration proceedings or pronounce the award; pronouncement of the award rested with the Arbitral Tribunal.ratio¶16

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, J.), O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 709/2025 & I.A. 21378/2025, order dated 16.09.2025 — Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, S. 29A — extension of arbitrator's mandate — mandate expired 28.10.2024; arguments before the Tribunal concluded 28.05.2024, within the mandate; petition filed 20.08.2025 — respondent, relying on GL Litmus Events Pvt. Ltd. v. Delhi Development Authority (OMP (Comm) No.189/2018, dt. 01.09.2025), contended that inordinate and unexplained delay in pronouncement of the award sufficed to set it aside — Court held GL Litmus distinguishable, as it dealt with awards pronounced after expiry of the mandate, and inapplicable where the Court regularizes the interregnum between expiry of the mandate and pronouncement; after conclusion of arguments, pronouncement lay with the Arbitral Tribunal and not the petitioner — mandate extended from 28.10.2024 to 20.08.2025; petition disposed of with pending applications.

¶1

$~O-56

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 709/2025 and I.A. 21378/2025

¶4

CTRLS DATACENTERS LIMITED .....Petitioner

¶5

Through: Ms.Dhriti Mehta and Mr. Jeevan, Advocates.

¶6

versus

¶7

ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION

¶8

.....Respondent

¶9

Through: Mr.Peeyosh Kalra, Mr. Yashwant Singh, Ms.Meghna Nair and Mr. Shoaib Akhter, Advocates.

¶10

CORAM:

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV O R D E R % 16.09.2025

¶12

Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.

¶13

Mr. Peeyosh Kalra, learned counsel for the respondent, submits that the reply has been filed.

¶14

Let the said reply be placed in the digital record of the Court.

¶15

Learned counsel for the respondent has handed over the hard copy of the reply across the board.

¶16

The same has been considered for passing of the order.

¶17

The facts of the case would indicate that the mandate of the Arbitrator had expired on 28.10.2024, and the petition came to be filed on 20.08.2025. 7. Mr. Kalra, learned counsel, therefore, submits that there is an inordinate delay in approaching the Court.

¶18

This is a digitally signed order.

¶19

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 24/09/2025 at 12:18:21

¶20

Under these circumstances, he places reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of GL Litmus Events Pvt. Ltd. vs. Delhi Development Authority² , and contends that when there is an inordinate and unexplained delay in the pronouncement of the award, the same itself is enough to set it aside.

¶21

Per contra, Ms.Dhriti Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioner, draws the attention of this Court to paragraph no.16 of her petition, and she points out that the arguments were concluded on 28.05.2024, whereas the mandate of the Arbitrator was in force till 28.10.2024.

¶22

She, therefore, submits that thereafter the petitioner has taken various steps before the Arbitrator to pursue the pronouncement of the award. She has drawn the attention of this Court to some of the communications, which have been placed on record.

¶23

Paragraph no.16 of the petition is extracted as under:-

¶24

“16. However, owing to the complex technical/legal issues involved in the arbitration proceedings and the extensive volume of the record, the award could not be pronounced by the Learned Arbitral Tribunal by 28 October 2024. At this juncture, it is pertinent to highlight that several verbal requests were made by the Petitioner to the Learned Tribunal to provide an estimate of time that the Learned Tribunal would require for finalising and passing the arbitral award. To that effect, on 26 May 2025 and 26 June 2025, the Petitioner also sent emails to the Learned Arbitral Tribunal requesting an estimate of the time that the Learned Tribunal would require for finalising and passing the arbitral award, so that immediately upon receiving the necessary directions from the Hon’ble Tribunal, appropriate application under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 may be filed.”

¶25

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the

¶26

parties, and also perused the record.

¶27

In view of the overall situation that persists, the Court deems it

¶28

2 OMP (Comm) No.189/2018 dated 01.09.2025,

¶29

This is a digitally signed order.

¶30

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 24/09/2025 at 12:18:21

¶31

appropriate to extend the mandate of the Arbitrator.

¶32

It be noted that so far as the decision relied upon by Mr. Kalra, in the case of GL Litmus Events Pvt. Ltd. is concerned, the same relates to a situation where the pronouncement of the award itself was after the mandate had expired.

¶33

The said decision will have no application under the facts of the present case if the Court considers to regularize the period between the expiry of the mandate till the award is pronounced.

¶34

It be also noted that in the instant case, the arguments were concluded on 28.05.2024, well within the mandate of the Arbitrator itself. After 28.05.2024, there was nothing in the hands of the petitioner, so as to conclude the arbitration proceedings, and in pronouncing the award and the same is within the hands of the concerned Arbitral Tribunal.

¶35

Under these circumstances, the Court deems it appropriate to extend the mandate of the Arbitrator from 28.10.2024 to 20.08. 2025. 18. With the aforesaid observations, the instant petition stands disposed of along with all pending application(s).

¶36

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J

¶37

SEPTEMBER 16, 2025 Nc/mj

¶38

This is a digitally signed order.

¶39

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 24/09/2025 at 12:18:21

Ctrls Datacenters Limited v. All India Council for Technical Education

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ctrls Datacenters Limited v. All India Council for Technical Education

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ircon International Ltd. Vs Afcons Infrastructure Ltd.

Vinod Kundra & Ors. Vs Abl Workspaces Private Limited

S B Protech Private Limited Vs Dlf Limited

Energy Efficiency Services Ltd. through Its Authorised Singnatory Mr Anil Agrawal Vs a One Realtors Pvt. Ltd. through Its Director Mr K K Wadhwa

Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. Vs Ircon International Ltd.

Indian Oil Corporation Limited Vs Allied Concern

Cmm Infraprojects Ltd. Vs Ircon International Ltd.

M/S Blackmelon Advance Technology Company Vs M/S Jai Kartar Digitech Private Limited

Rajeev Kumar Talreja & Anr. Vs Concept Capital Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd.

Panna Lal Om Prakash and Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ajit Prasad Aggarwal and Anr.

Rajesh Kumar Gupta Vs Jagdish Kaur Arora

M/S Sekai Private Limited Vs M/S Hil (India) Limited

Moneywise Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs Muskan Engineering and Ors.

M/S CARS24 Services Private Limited Vs Shaik Riyas Proprietor of M/S Malik Motors & Anr.