Petition under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act seeking extension of the Arbitral Tribunal's mandate, with arbitral proceedings at final arguments stage. With no objection from the respondent, the court extended the mandate by one year.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~82
BRACE IRON AND STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Abhimanyu Mahajan and Mr. Mayank Joshi, Advocates.
versus
TATA STEEL LIMITED .....Respondent Through: Ms. Etisha Srivastav and Ms. Saravna Vasnta, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI O R D E R % 23.01.2025
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 29/01/2025 at 12:27:20
extended.
MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J
JANUARY 23, 2025 ga
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 29/01/2025 at 12:27:20
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal should be extended under Section 29A(4) A&C Act for one year to conclude proceedings.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Brace Iron and Steel Private Limited
Tata Steel Limited
Manoj Kumar Ohri
As recorded by the court registry
A miscellaneous application in an arbitration matter, commonly seeking extension of the arbitral tribunal's mandate under Section 29A.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
