Disposed¶22

Daulat Ram Dharam Bir Auto Private Limited and Ors. v. Pivotal Infrastructure Private Limited and Ors.

Delhi HC20 Nov 2025O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.)/949/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 29A(4) & (5) Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996; extension of arbitral mandate after expiry; regularization of lapsed period; Rohan Builders (India) Private Limited v. Berger Paints India Limited 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2494; O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 949/2025; Delhi High Court; Justice Subramonium Prasad; mandate extended till 31.07.2026; Daulat Ram Dharam Bir Auto Pvt Ltd v. Pivotal Infrastructure Pvt Ltd.

What did the court decide?

Mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal extended till 31.07.2026, with the period from 23.11.2025 till the date of the order regularized; petition disposed of along with pending applications, if any. ¶22

Daulat Ram Dharam Bir Auto Private Limited and Ors. Vs Pivotal… — Arbitration | Delhi HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal extended till 31.07.2026, with the period from 23.11.2025 till the date of the order regularized; petition disposed of along with pending applications, if any.

¶22

Issue for consideration

Whether the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal, which expired on 23.11.2025, ought to be extended under Section 29A (4) & (5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. +1 more

¶14

Court's answer

Since substantial progress has been made in the arbitral proceedings and both parties agreed, the Court extended the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal by 6 months.

¶19

Ratio / Principle

The Court regularized the period from 23.11.2025 till the date of the order and extended the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal till 31.07.2026 so that the award can be pronounced.

¶21

Key takeaways

The order is confined to extension of the mandate; all other allegations regarding the conduct of the Petitioners and/or Respondents stand eschewed.obiter¶23

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (Subramonium Prasad, J.) disposed of a petition under Section 29A (4) & (5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 949/2025) seeking extension of the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal, constituted on 27.04.2023, whose mandate had expired on 23.11.2025. Following Rohan Builders (India) Private Limited v. Berger Paints India Limited, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2494, wherein the Supreme Court held that an application under Section 29A (4) read with Section 29A (5) is maintainable even after expiry of the twelve-month or extended six-month period, and noting that substantial progress had been made (witnesses on one side already examined; matter at the stage of cross-examination of Respondent's witnesses) with both parties agreeing to six months, the Court regularized the period from 23.11.2025 till the date of the order and extended the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal till 31.07.2026 for pronouncement of the award. The order was expressly confined to extension of mandate, with all other allegations regarding the parties' conduct eschewed.

¶1

$~74

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 949/2025

¶4

DAULAT RAM DHARAM BIR AUTO PRIVATE LIMITED AND

¶5

ORS .....Petitioners

¶6

Through: Mr. Gaurav Gupta and Mr. Advocate Thakur Ankit Singh, Advocates

¶7

versus

¶8

PIVOTAL INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED AND ORS

¶9

.....Respondents Through: Mr. Nikhil Goel Sr. Adv and Mr. Aniruddha Deshmukh, Advocates for R-1

¶10

Mr. Udit Gupta and Ms. Pragya Gupta, Advocates for R-3

¶11

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD

¶12

O R D E R % 20.11.2025

¶13

The present petition under Section 29A (4) & (5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has been filed by the Petitioners seeking extension of the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal.

¶14

Material on record indicates that the Arbitral Tribunal was constituted by this Court on 27.04.2023. The mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal has expired on 23.11.2025, and therefore, the present petition has been filed for extending the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal.

¶15

Mr. Nikhil Goel, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Respondents states that in the last four months, four hearing have been conducted by the learned Arbitrator and in all the hearings, the Petitioners

¶16

This is a digitally signed order.

¶17

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 28/11/2025 at 15:14:37

¶18

have sought time. He further states that the proceedings have been delayed due to this of the Petitioners.

¶19

Be that as it may, it is agreed by both parties that since substantial progress has been made in the arbitral proceedings, Prosecution’s witnesses have already been examined and the matter is at the stage of crossexamination of Respondent’s witnesses, the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal can be extended for a period of 6 months. In view of the same, this Court is inclined to extend the mandate of the arbitration by 6 months.

¶20

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.

¶21

In view of the facts of the present case, this Court is inclined to regularize the period from 23.11.2025 till today and extend the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal till 31.07.2026, so that the award can be pronounced.

¶22

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

¶23

It is made clear that this order has been passed only to the extent of extension of mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal, all the other allegations made regarding the conduct of the Petitioners and/or Respondents stand eschewed.

¶24

SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J

¶25

NOVEMBER 20, 2025 Prateek

¶26

This is a digitally signed order.

¶27

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 28/11/2025 at 15:14:37

Daulat Ram Dharam Bir Auto Private Limited and Ors. v. Pivotal Infrastructure Private Limited and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Daulat Ram Dharam Bir Auto Private Limited and Ors. v. Pivotal Infrastructure Private Limited and Ors.

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

National Skill Development Corporation Vs M/S Sunrise Computers Software Limited Others

Pma Construction Co. Vs Ministry of Road Transport and Highways

Spacio Interspace Vs Te Hospitality and Estates Ltd.

Indian Oil Corporation Limited Vs Inox Wind Limited

Tata Capital Limited Transferee of Tata Capital Financial Services Limited Vs M/S Green Land Motors and Ors.

M/S S.S. Total Construction India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India

M/S S.S. Total Construction India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India

Asics India Private Limited Vs Eshopbox E-Commerce Private Limited

Kr Pet Industries Vs Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation Ltd. (Irctc) & Anr.

M/S Paisalo Digital Limited (Formerly Known as M/S S. E. Investments Limited) Vs M/S Hungry N Thirsty Foods Private Limited (Formerly Known as Nir Advisors Pvt. Ltd.)

M/S Livfast Batteries Private Limited Vs M/S Power Solution & Anr.

M/S K B G Engineers Vs Public Works Department Govt of NCT of Delhi

M/S Conarch Associates through Its Partner Vs Ircon International Ltd.

Jupiter Wagons Ltd. Vs Union of India