Allowed¶17

Intec Capital Ltd. v. Aegis Ampoules and Vials Ltd. & Ors.

Delhi HC5 May 2025O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.)/899/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Delhi High Court, O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 899/2024, decided 05.05.2025 by Hon'ble Ms. Justice Jyoti Singh. Extension of arbitral mandate under Section 29A(4) and (5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; INTEC Capital Ltd. v. Aegis Ampoules and Vials Ltd & Ors.; Loan Agreement dated 31.10.2011; death of Arbitrator before delivery of Award; substitute Arbitrator appointed 14.12.2023 under Sections 14(1)(a) and 15(2); mandate expired 17.09.2023; consensual extension by six months from 05.05.2025 with regularisation of interregnum 18.09.2023 to 04.05.2025; petition allowed and disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Extension of the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal by 06 months from 05.05.2025, with regularisation of the period between 18.09.2023 to 04.05.2025; petition allowed and disposed of. ¶17

Intec Capital Ltd. Vs Aegis Ampoules and Vials Ltd. & Ors. — Arbitration | Delhi HC (2025)

¶1

$~19

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 899/2024

¶4

INTEC CAPITAL LTD .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Pranav Goyal, Mr. Vishant Singh and Ms. Mreeganka Goyal, Advocates. versus

¶5

AEGIS AMPOULES AND VIALS LTD & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Dhananjay Shekhawat and Mr. Dhananjay Kumar, Advocates.

¶6

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH

¶7

O R D E R % 05.05.2025

¶8

This petition is preferred on behalf of the Petitioner under Section 29A(4) and (5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘1996 Act’) seeking extension of mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal.

¶9

Disputes having arisen between the parties in relation to a Loan Agreement dated 31.10.2011, parties resorted to arbitration for adjudication of the disputes. By order dated 05.08.2019, this Court substituted the Arbitrator, terminating the mandate of the earlier Arbitrator. Both sides led their evidence and it appears from the documents on record that the learned Arbitrator prepared the Award but before the same could be signed and delivered to the parties, the Arbitrator expired. In these circumstances, Petitioner filed the petition under Sections 14(1)(a) and 15(2) of 1996 Act for appointment of a substitute Arbitrator, which was allowed vide order dated 14.12.2023 and a substitute Arbitrator was appointed. It is averred in the petition that the proceedings are at the stage of final arguments and

¶10

Page 1 of 2

¶11

O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 899/2024

¶12

This is a digitally signed order.

¶13

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 01/07/2025 at 16:30:25

¶14

therefore, mandate be extended for completion of the proceedings and passing of the Award. The mandate of the Arbitrator has expired on 17.09.2023.

¶15

Learned counsel for the Respondents, on instructions, submits that the Respondents have no objection to the extension of mandate of Arbitral Tribunal.

¶16

Accordingly, with the consent of the parties, mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal is extended by 06 months from 05.05.2025 and period between 18.09.2023 to 04.05.2025 is regularised.

¶17

Petition is allowed and disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶18

JYOTI SINGH, J

¶19

MAY 05, 2025/shivam

¶20

Page 2 of 2

¶21

O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 899/2024

¶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 01/07/2025 at 16:30:25

Intec Capital Ltd. v. Aegis Ampoules and Vials Ltd. & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Intec Capital Ltd. v. Aegis Ampoules and Vials Ltd. & Ors.

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

Tata Capital Limited Vs Shyam Karan Trivedi & Ors.

Tata Capital Limited - Transferee of Tata Capital Financial Services Ltd. Vs M/S. J. v. Steel Tubes & Ors.

Sembcorp Green Infra Private Limited Vs Siemens Gamesa Renewable Power Private Limited

Bajaj Infrastructure Development Company Ltd. Vs Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd.

M/S Das Construction Vs Container Corporation of India

Sunil Kumar Srivastava Vs M/S Ranchi Msw Pvt. Ltd.

Hs Oberoi Buildtech Prn Ate Limited Vs Mahamaya Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.

M/S Dream Merchant Realtors Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Amd Estates Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

M/S Dineshchandra R Agrawal Infracon Pvt. Ltd. through Its Director Shri R K Joshi Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Anr.

Tata Capital Limited Vs Shyam Karan Trivedi & Ors.

Tata Capital Limited - Transferee of Tata Capital Financial Services Ltd. Vs M/S. J. v. Steel Tubes & Ors.

Rccivl-Litl (Jv) Vs Union of India

M/S Supreme Infrastructure India Limited Vs Freyssinet Memard India Pvt. Ltd.

Sarvesh Security Services Pvt. Ltd. through Its Authorized Signatory Col Retd S N P Singh Vs Managing Director Delhi State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd.