Disposed

Kalpataru Projects International Limited v. Santoshi Hyvolt Electricals Private Limited

Delhi HC14 Nov 2025O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.)/819/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petition under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act for extension of arbitral mandate after the arbitrator's recusal and reappointment. Relying on Rohan Builders, the court regularized the period from 28.01.2025 and extended the mandate to 31.11.2026.

What did the court decide?

Period from 28.01.2025 regularized and mandate of Arbitral Tribunal extended till 31.11.2026.

Kalpataru Projects International Limited Vs Santoshi Hyvolt… — Arbitration | Delhi HC (2025)

¶1

$~31

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 819/2025

¶4

KALPATARU PROJECTS INTERNATIONAL LIMITED

¶5

.....Petitioner Through: Ms. Anu Tiwari, Mr. Sudhir Kumar, Mr. Vikrant Singh Bloria, Mr. Sushant Tomar and Mr. Shubham Devrani, Advocates.

¶6

versus

¶7

SANTOSHI HYVOLT ELECTRICALS PRIVATE LIMITED

¶8

.....Respondent Through: Mr. Ishu Bansal, Mr. Yogesh Mittal, Mr. Sidhaarth Joshi, Ms. Sapna Chaudhary, Mr. Naveen Bhati, Mr. Nitin Kumar, Mr. Rydhem Nagar, Mr. Umang Bansal and Ms. Mahima Adhikari, Advocates

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD

¶10

O R D E R

¶11

% 14.11.2025

¶12

The present petition under Section 29A(5) & (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has been filed by the Petitioner for extending the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal.

¶13

It is stated that the Arbitral Tribunal was appointed by this Court vide Orders dated 18.01.2023 and 23.01.2023, passed by this Court in ARB.P. 552/2022 and ARB.P. 418/2022 respectively. It is stated that the learned Arbitrator recused himself on 28.01.2025 and subsequently, this Court vide

¶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 19/11/2025 at 14:37:40

¶15

Order dated 04.09.2025 in ARB.P. 783/2025 and other connected matters, appointed Justice G. S. Sistani (Retd.), Former Judge of this Court.

¶16

It is the case of the Petitioner that the learned Arbitrator has started proceedings from the stage from where the earlier Arbitrator left the proceedings. It is stated that the pleadings were completed in August 2023. It is stated that the period of one year got over in August 2024 and the parties extended the mandate of the learned Arbitrator by way of mutual consent for six months. It is stated that the said mandate expired on 28.01.2025. It is stated that the matter is at the stage of Respondent’s evidence.

¶17

It is stated that the Arbitrator, who was appointed by this Court vide Order dated 04.09.2025, is awaiting the extension of mandate to continue with the proceedings. The Petitioner has, therefore, approached this Court for extension of mandate of the Arbitrator.

¶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

In view of the facts of the present case, this Court is inclined to regularize the period from 28.01.2025 till today and extend the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal till 31.11.2026, so that the award can be pronounced.

¶20

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

¶21

Since the present matter only pertains to extension of the mandate of

¶22

This is a digitally signed order.

¶23

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 19/11/2025 at 14:37:40

¶24

the learned Arbitrator, this Order is only confined to extension of the mandate only and all the allegations and objections raised by the Petitioner on the conduct of the Respondent in the Arbitral proceedings or otherwise are eschewed as they are irrelevant for the proceedings.

¶25

SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J

¶26

NOVEMBER 14, 2025 Rahul

¶27

Kalpataru Projects International Limited v. Santoshi Hyvolt Electricals Private Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kalpataru Projects International Limited v. Santoshi Hyvolt Electricals Private Limited

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

M/S Skyline Air Conditioning Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India

M/S Fitness for India Vs M/S Suridhi Commercial Infra Pvt. Ltd.

Manoj Kapoor and Ors. Vs Santosh Kumar Yadav

Arcelormittal Nippon Steel India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Mideast Integrated Steel Ltd.

M/S Rds Project Limited Vs Union of India(through Director General, Map)

Mrs. Veena Garg Vs Sh. Ramesh Chandra Garg

Ashok Kumar Dusad (Huf) Vs M/S Kwatra Tent and Caterers Pvt. Ltd.

M/S D.S. Pannu and Associates Private Limited Vs Executive Enginner National Highway Division, Chattisgarh Pwd, Jagdalpur

M/S Skyline Air Conditioning Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India

Sri Parameshwari Tele Infra Vs M/S Oriental Structural Engineers Pvt. Ltd.

Vlcc Healthcare Limited Vs Azad Ahmad Dar

Kalpataru Projects International Limited Vs Santoshi Hyvolt Electricals Private Limited

Ceva Logistics India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Upscalio India Pvt. Ltd., We Work Forum Cyber City

Orix Leasing and Financial Services India Ltd. Vs Gensol Engineering Ltd. & Ors.