Petition under Section 29A(4)/(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act sought extension of the arbitral mandate, which had expired during final arguments. Unopposed by the respondent; the court extended the mandate by six months and regularised the intervening period.
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.
$~56
IDFC FIRST BANK LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Dhruv, Ms. Palak & Mr. Ronit, Advocates.
versus HITACHI MGRM NET LIMITED .....Respondent Through:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL
O R D E R % 13.10.2025
AMIT BANSAL, J
OCTOBER 13, 2025/ at
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 15/10/2025 at 12:14:12
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal, expired on 27 September 2025, should be extended under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
IDFC FIRST BANK LIMITED
HITACHI MGRM NET LIMITED
Amit Bansal
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
