Partly allowed¶49

M/S Sharda Developers v. M/S Agarwal Associates (Promotor) Limited

Delhi HC8 Jan 2026O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.)/1022/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Extension of mandate of arbitrator vs substitution of arbitrator; Section 29A and Section 29A(6), Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; alleged delay in arbitral proceedings; proceedings nearing completion; timeline for conclusion; Delhi High Court, O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 1021/2025, 1022/2025, 22/2026, 23/2026; M/s Sharda Developers; M/s Agarwal Associates Promoters Limited; Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar; order dated 08.01.2026; outcome: mandate extended four months, substitution refused, all petitions disposed.

What did the court decide?

Mandate of the learned Arbitrator extended for a further period of Four months from 08.01.2026 with a request to expedite (extension petitions disposed of); substitution petitions found untenable ('no case for substitution is made out') and disposed of. ¶49

M/S Sharda Developers Vs M/S Agarwal Associates (Promotor) Limited — Arbitration | Delhi HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶49

Issue for consideration

Whether the mandate of the learned Arbitrator, stated to have expired on 27.12.2025, should be extended (O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) Nos. 1021/2025 & 1022/2025). +1 more

¶42

Court's answer

Considering the spirit and object of the Act, the Court deemed it appropriate to fix a timeline for conclusion of the Arbitral Proceedings.

¶48

Ratio / Principle

At the stage when the Arbitral Proceedings are nearing completion, substitution of the learned Arbitrator would not be practical or conducive to the expeditious disposal of the dispute.

¶47

Key takeaways

The mandate of the learned Arbitrator is extended for a further period of Four months from today, and the Arbitrator is requested to expedite the matter.ratio¶49
In view of the findings recorded hereinabove and the extension of the mandate of the learned Arbitrator, no case for substitution is made out.ratio¶52

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar), common order dated 08.01.2026 in four cross-petitions under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: M/s Sharda Developers sought extension of the arbitrator's mandate (stated to have expired on 27.12.2025) in O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) Nos. 1021/2025 & 1022/2025; M/s Agarwal Associates Promoters Limited sought substitution of the arbitrator under Section 29A(6) in O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) Nos. 22/2026 & 23/2026, objecting that the arbitrator had allowed an application at the final stage likely to cause further delay. Holding that substitution when proceedings are nearing completion would be neither practical nor conducive to expeditious disposal, the Court fixed a timeline, extended the mandate by four months with a direction to expedite, found no case for substitution, and disposed of all four petitions.

¶1

$~22, 23, 35 & 36

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 1021/2025 & I.A. 31477/2025 (Ex. From filing certified copies of dim annexures)

¶4

M/S SHARDA DEVELOPERS .....Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr. Roshan Santhalia, Mr.Shivansh Sinha, Advocates

¶6

versus

¶7

M/S AGARWAL ASSOCIATES (PROMOTERS) LIMITED

¶8

.....Respondent Through: Mr. Divyakant Lahoti, Ms.Akanksha Soni and Ms. Shubheksha Dwivedi, Advocates

¶9

¶10

O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 1022/2025 & I.A. 31482/2025 (Ex. From filing certified copies of dim annexures)

¶11

M/S SHARDA DEVELOPERS .....Petitioner

¶12

Through: Mr. Roshan Santhalia, Mr.Shivansh Sinha, Advocates versus

¶13

M/S AGARWAL ASSOCIATES (PROMOTOR) LIMITED

¶14

.....Respondent Through: Mr. Divyakant Lahoti, Ms.Akanksha Soni and Ms. Shubheksha Dwivedi, Advocates

¶15

¶16

O.M.P. (MISC.)(COMM) 22/2026

¶17

M/S AGARWAL ASSOCIATES PROMOTERS LIMITED

¶18

.....Petitioner

¶19

Through: Mr. Divyakant Lahoti,

¶20

This is a digitally signed order.

¶21

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 12/01/2026 at 12:42:32

¶22

Ms.Akanksha Soni and Ms. Shubheksha Dwivedi, Advocates

¶23

versus

¶24

M/S SHARDA DEVELOPERS THROUGH ITS PROPERIETOR .....Respondent Through: Mr. Roshan Santhalia, Mr.Shivansh Sinha, Advocates

¶25

¶26

+ O.M.P. (MISC.)(COMM) 23/2026

¶27

M/S AGARWAL ASSOCIATES PROMOTERS LIMITED

¶28

.....Petitioner

¶29

Through: Mr. Divyakant Lahoti, Ms.Akanksha Soni and Ms. Shubheksha Dwivedi, Advocates

¶30

versus

¶31

M/S SHARDA DEVELOPERS THROUGH ITS PROPERIETOR .....Respondent Through: Mr. Roshan Santhalia, Mr.Shivansh Sinha, Advocates

¶32

CORAM:

¶33

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR

¶34

O R D E R % 08.01.2026

¶35

O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) Nos. 1021/2025 and 1022/2025 have been filed by M/s Sharda Developers , under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [“ Act ”], seeking extension of the mandate of the learned Arbitrator for a further period of Six months.

¶36

This is a digitally signed order.

¶37

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 12/01/2026 at 12:42:32

¶38

O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) Nos. 22/2026 and 23/2026 have been filed by M/s Agarwal Associates Promoters Limited , under Section 29A(6) of the Act, seeking substitution of the learned Arbitrator.

¶39

The solitary ground canvassed in support of the present Applications for substitution, as well as in opposition to the extension of the mandate, is allegedly the delay in the conclusion of the Arbitral Proceedings.

¶40

Since the issues arising in all the aforesaid Applications are common and interconnected, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matters have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

¶41

O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 1021/2025 & I.A. 31477/2025 O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 1022/2025 & I.A. 31482/2025

¶42

These Petitions have been filed for extension of the mandate of the Arbitration which is stated to have expired on 27.12.2025. 5. Respondent has filed their reply dated 22.12.2025 opposing the prayer for extension of the mandate of the learned Arbitrator. 6. It is contended on behalf of the Respondent that, at the final stage of the Arbitral Proceedings, the learned Arbitrator allowed an Application which, according to them, is likely to further delay the conclusion of the Arbitral Proceedings.

¶43

It is for the above-said reason, the Respondent has sought to challenge the extention of the Ld. Arbitrator and in turn, prayed for substitution of the Ld. Arbitrator.

¶44

The counsel for Petitioner contends that the said Application was merely allowed by the Ld. Arbitrator in the interest of Justice and on the ground that it went to the very root of the matter.

¶45

This is a digitally signed order.

¶46

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 12/01/2026 at 12:42:32

¶47

This Court is of the considered view that, at this stage of the proceedings, particularly when the Arbitral Proceedings are nearing completion, substitution of the learned Arbitrator would not be practical or conducive to the expeditious disposal of the dispute.

¶48

In these circumstances, considering the spirit and object of the Act, it is deemed appropriate to fix a timeline for conclusion of the Arbitral Proceedings.

¶49

Accordingly, the mandate of the learned Arbitrator is extended for a further period of Four months from today. The learned Arbitrator is requested to expedite the matter.

¶50

With the aforesaid directions, O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) Nos. 1021/2025 and 1022/2025, along with all pending Application(s), if any, stand disposed of.

¶51

O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 22/2026 O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 23/2026

¶52

In view of the findings recorded hereinabove and the extension of the mandate of the learned Arbitrator, no case for substitution is made out.

¶53

Accordingly, O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) Nos. 22/2026 and 23/2026, along with all pending Application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

¶54

A photocopy of this Order be placed in the connected matters.

¶55

HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J. JANUARY 8, 2026/rk/kr

¶56

This is a digitally signed order.

¶57

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 12/01/2026 at 12:42:32

M/S Sharda Developers v. M/S Agarwal Associates (Promotor) Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Sharda Developers v. M/S Agarwal Associates (Promotor) Limited

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

Dee Vee Projects Ltd. Vs Ms Hindustan Urvarak and Rasayan Ltd.

M/S. a K Gulati and Sons Vs Union of India

M/S Taurant Projects Ltd. Vs M/S Gail India Ltd.

Shree Hospital Equipments through Its Proprietor Mr. Dhanaji Bhatale Alias Dhananjay Bhatale Vs Action Construction Equipment Limited

M/S. Swarnaa Techno Construction (P) Ltd. Vs Ircon Infrastructure and Services Ltd.

T.K. Engineering Consortium Pvt. Ltd. Vs National Highway and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited

Sowil Limited Vs Chief Engineer National Highway Road Construction Department Govt of Jharkhand

M/S Alpha Corp Development Limited Vs M/S Ketan Construction Company

Jubilant Foodworks Limited Vs Panibai Surajmal Choudhari

Govt. of NCT of Delhi Vs M/S Anil Kumar Ahuja

Catalyst Trusteeship Limited Vs Lalit Sanduja

Devyani International Limited Vs Ghulam Nabi Kathroo & Ors.

M/S Sharda Developers Vs M/S Agarwal Associates (Promoters) Limited

Kuldeep Kumar Contractor Vs Sports Authority of India Sai