Allowed¶16

Cyret Technologies India Private Limited v. Pernod Ricard India Private Limited

Delhi HC5 Jan 2026O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.)/12/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 12/2026, Delhi High Court, 05.01.2026, Mini Pushkarna J; Cyret Technologies India Pvt Ltd v Pernod Ricard India Pvt Ltd; extension of arbitral mandate under Sections 29A(4) and (5), Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996; mandate expired 24.11.2025; final hearing concluded 11.09.2025, award pending; respondent gave no objection; six-month extension from date of order; regularization of expired period; petition allowed and disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal extended for six months from 05.01.2026; period from 24.11.2025 till date regularized; petition disposed of accordingly. ¶16

Cyret Technologies India Private Limited Vs Pernod Ricard India… — Arbitration | Delhi HC (2026)

¶1

$~8

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 12/2026

¶4

CYRET TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED

¶5

.....Petitioner

¶6

Through: Mr. Manish Dhir, Advocate (Through VC)

¶7

versus

¶8

PERNOD RICARD INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED .....Respondent Through: Mr. Krishan Tewary, Advocate and Ms. Malvikka Arya, Advocate (Through VC) Mob: 9899264894 Email: [email protected]

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA

¶10

O R D E R % 05.01.2026

¶11

The present petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner under Sections 29A(4) and (5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, for extending the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal, which has already expired on 24^th November, 2025.

¶12

It is submitted that the final hearing already stands concluded on 11^th September, 2025 and only the award needs to be passed. Thus, the present petition has been filed praying for granting an extension of the term/mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal for a further period of six months. Learned counsel for the petitioner further prays for regularization of the period from 24^th November, 2025.

¶13

This is a digitally signed order.

¶14

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 06/01/2026 at 12:37:20

¶15

Issue notice. Notice is accepted by learned counsel appearing for the respondent, who submits that he has no objection if the present petition is allowed.

¶16

Accordingly, considering the submissions made before this Court and the no objection given by the respondent, the present petition is allowed and the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal is extended for a period of six months, from today. Further, the period from 24^th November, 2025, till date, also stands regularized.

¶17

With the aforesaid directions, the present petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶18

MINI PUSHKARNA, J

¶19

JANUARY 5, 2026/ SK

¶20

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 06/01/2026 at 12:37:20

Cyret Technologies India Private Limited v. Pernod Ricard India Private Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Cyret Technologies India Private Limited v. Pernod Ricard India Private 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

Lalitpur Power Generation Company Ltd. Vs Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd.

Nikhil Sachar Vs Friends Hospitality & Ors.

Dbl Gorhar Khairatunda Highways Private Limited Vs the Chairman National Highways Authority of India

Kamlesh Gulati & Ors. Vs Mr Deepak Gulati & Anr.

Mrs Inderjit Chhabra & Ors. Vs Ms Athena Infrastructres Ltd.

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

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

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

Mohit Bhatia Vs Union of India & Ors.

Indrawati Devi Vs Bses Yamuna Power Ltd. and Ors.

Mehfoooz Ahmed & Anr. Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Anr.

N S Associates Pvt. Ltd. Vs New Delhi Municipal Council

M/S Sijori International LLP through Its Partner Sailander Solanki Vs Yogesh Malik Proprietor B.S. Dwarka

M/S D Thakkar Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Vs Container Corporation of India Ltd.