Allowed

Sanjeev Anand v. Alpana Aggarwal & Ors.

Delhi HC2 Sept 2026O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.)/180/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order addresses a petition under Section 29A(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act seeking an extension of the arbitrator's mandate. The court held that the extension was justified on sufficient cause, despite delays, and regularized the interim period.

What did the court decide?

The mandate of the arbitrator is extended by six months from the date of the order, and the intervening period is regularized.

Sanjeev Anand Vs Alpana Aggarwal & Ors. — Arbitration | Delhi HC (2026)

¶1

$~54

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

CNR No. DLHC010060132026

¶4

O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 180/2026 & I.A. 4493/2026

¶5

SANJEEV ANAND .....Petitioner

¶6

Through: Mr. Saurabh Kansal, Mr. Raghav Vij, Ms. Ritul Sharma and Ms. Vanshika Kapoor, Advs.

¶7

versus

¶8

ALPANA AGGARWAL & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Rajesh Ranjan, Mr. Adil Vasudeva and Mr. Dronit Arora, Advs.

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN

¶11

O R D E R % 02.09.2026

¶12

This petition is filed under Section 29A(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short ‘the Act’) for extension of the mandate of the arbitrator.

¶13

The brief facts are that the dispute between the parties was referred to arbitration as per the arbitration clause in the agreement for transfer of shares between the parties. The arbitration was invoked at the instance of the petitioner by issuing a notice dated 14.07.2016 under Section 21 of the Act. The petition under Section 11 of the Act was allowed on 05.10.2016 and the parties were directed to appear before the DIAC Coordinator and the proceedings were to commence as per Rule 4.1(a) of the DIAC Rules. The

¶14

This is a digitally signed order.

¶15

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 05/09/2026 at 10:25:19

¶16

arbitrator was ultimately appointed by the DIAC on 15.03.2024. The respondent was proceeded ex-parte before the arbitrator and this order was later set aside. The applications filed under Sections 16 and 17 of the Act were disposed of leaving the issue of limitation open.

¶17

2.1 The arbitration is at the stage of recording the evidence of the claimant and in the meantime the mandate expired on 15.09.2025. Hence, the present petition.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that every attempt is being made for getting the matter concluded expeditiously but due to intervening circumstances, filing of the applications and setting aside of the ex-parte order, the delay has occurred. The prayer is that the mandate of the arbitrator be extended by one year. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent vehemently opposes the prayer and contends that the prayer made in the arbitration is similar to one made in the proceedings pending before the Company Court and there are two applications pending before the Company Court for transfer of shares as per the agreement. The contention is that the DIAC has no jurisdiction to continue with the arbitration proceedings and there is a delay of ten years by DIAC in appointing arbitrator. The claim has become time-barred. He further contends that the mandate cannot be extended on mere asking and relies upon the decisions of this court in Rajesh Gupta Vs. Oyo Hotels and Homes Pvt. Ltd MANU/DEOR/83937/202, Skylark Cagers India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Institute of Liver and Biliary Sciences 2023/DHC/001547, Desire Infrabuild Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Oyo Apartments Investments LLP 2025 SCC OnLine Del 5929, Fedbank Financial Services Ltd. Vs. Narendra H. Shelar 2020:BHC-OS:4675, Nalin Vallabhai Patel Vs. Atharva Realtors

¶19

This is a digitally signed order.

¶20

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 05/09/2026 at 10:25:19

¶21

MANU/MHOR/19193/2024, Nalin Vallabhai Patel Vs. Atharva Realtors MANU/SCOR/23315/2025, Nalin Vallabhai Patel Vs. Atharva Realtors MANU/MH/3108/2026 and Rajender Kumar Vs. National Highway Authority of India 2026 SCC OnLine HP 3667.

¶22

The contentions of the learned counsel of the respondent that claim is time-barred and there was delay in appointment of arbitrator need not be gone into at this stage. Suffice to say that the issue as to whether the claim is arbitrable or not is to be decided by the arbitrator. The issue of jurisdiction that the DIAC had no jurisdiction was raised before the arbitrator and was rejected vide order dated 10.11.2025 for which the remedies are available to the respondent at an appropriate stage. For dealing with the plea of delay of ten years from the matter being referred by this court to DIAC, it should be taken into account that the arbitrator was ultimately appointed on 15.03.2024.

¶23

This court under Section 29A(5) of the Act has power to extend the mandate on the existence of a sufficient cause. There is no dispute on the proposition being propounded by relying upon the judgements cited above, the mandate cannot be extended on mere asking. For seeking the extension of mandate, there has to be a sufficient cause and so has been pleaded in the petition filed. The limitation issued is pending before the arbitration. The intervening period of almost eight years between referring the matter to DIAC and appointment of the arbitrator is an issue to be raised by the parties at an appropriate stage before the arbitrator.

¶24

In view of the above discussion, the mandate of the arbitrator is extended by six months from today and the intervening period is regularised. 8. There is no doubt that the arbitrator with the cooperation of the parties

¶25

This is a digitally signed order.

¶26

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 05/09/2026 at 10:25:19

¶27

shall make an endeavour to decide the matter expeditiously.

¶28

AVNEESH JHINGAN, J

¶29

SEPTEMBER 2, 2026/Pa

¶30

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 05/09/2026 at 10:25:19

Sanjeev Anand v. Alpana Aggarwal & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjeev Anand v. Alpana Aggarwal & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Suridhi Commercial Infra Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs M/S La Lagos Sante Hospitality Pvt. Ltd.

Mangloor Highways Private Limited Vs National Highways Authority of India

M/S National Commodities Management Services Limited (Fmmerly Known as M/S National Collateral Mana Vs M/S Jagdamba Ricemill and Anr.

Indraprastha Logistics Private Limited Vs Government of NCT of Delhi

Malhotra Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Vs Rites Ltd. & Anr.

M/S Fitness for India Vs M/S Suridhi Commercial Infra Pvt. Ltd.

M/S a.K.Builders Vs All India Institute of Medical Sciences (Engineering Service Department)

Continuum Power Trading (Tn) Limited Vs Solar Energy Corporation of India Limited