Disposed¶22

Vandana Agrawal & Ors. v. Fam Bhagat Infratech (P) Ltd.

Arbitration – Extension of mandate

Delhi HC10 Feb 2026O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.)/970/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 29A A&C Act extension of arbitrator's mandate; delay of about two years in filing extension petition; lapse/conduct of counsel; parties not to suffer for counsel's fault; State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (2015) 4 SCC 334; no limitation prescribed under Section 29A for filing petition; substantial justice over technicality; mandate extended by six months; intervening period regularized; Delhi High Court 2026; Builders Agreement 23.08.2011; death of claimants and LRs brought on record.

What did the court decide?

Mandate of the arbitrator extended by six months from the date of the order; intervening period regularized; petition disposed of in those terms. ¶22

Vandana Agrawal & Ors. Vs Fam Bhagat Infratech (P) Ltd. — Arbitration | Delhi HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Mandate of the arbitrator extended by six months from the date of the order; intervening period regularized; petition disposed of in those terms.

¶22

Issue for consideration

Whether the arbitrator's mandate under Section 29A A&C Act should be extended notwithstanding the approximately two-year gap between the 18.09.2023 statement before the Arbitrator and the filing of the extension petition. +1 more

¶18

Court's answer

It is well-settled law that parties should not be made to suffer for the lapses or conduct of their counsel, supported by reference to State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (2015) 4 SCC 334.

¶18

Ratio / Principle

No limitation period is prescribed under Section 29A of the A&C Act for filing a petition seeking extension of the mandate.

¶18

Key takeaways

The period between the statement made before the Arbitrator and the filing of the extension application has been sufficiently explained.ratio¶18
Where technicality is weighed against substantial justice, the latter should prevail; on that basis the court proceeded to extend the mandate.ratio¶19
The mandate of the arbitrator is extended by six months from the date of the order and the intervening period is regularized.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Arbitration — Extension of mandate — Section 29A, Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (Delhi High Court, Avneesh Jhingan, J.; O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 970/2025; order dated 10.02.2026). Petitioners under a Builders Agreement dated 23.08.2011 sought extension of the arbitrator's mandate; the Arbitrator had been appointed under Section 11 A&C Act on 11.05.2021, and on 18.09.2023 the petitioners stated before the Arbitrator that an extension petition would be filed, but the petition was filed only in November 2025. The delay was attributed to the erstwhile counsel (engaged by the late Sh. Alok Agrawal, who had managed the proceedings after three of five claimants died and LRs were brought on record), who gave repeated assurances but did not file. Holding: (i) no limitation is prescribed under Section 29A for filing such a petition; (ii) parties should not be made to suffer for the lapses or conduct of counsel — State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (2015) 4 SCC 334 relied on; (iii) the intervening period stood sufficiently explained; substantial justice prevails over technicality. Mandate extended by six months; intervening period regularized; petition disposed of.

¶1

$~31

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 970/2025

¶4

VANDANA AGRAWAL & ORS. .....Petitioners

¶5

Through: Mr. Shohit Chaudhry, Adv.

¶6

versus

¶7

FAM BHAGAT INFRATECH (P) LTD. .....Respondent Through: Mr. Amique Khalid & Mr. Shamshad Siddiqui, Advs.

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN

¶10

O R D E R

¶11

% 10.02.2026

¶12

This petition is filed under Section 29A of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short ‘A&C Act’) seeking extension of period for concluding the arbitration proceedings.

¶13

The brief facts are that the parties to the lis entered into a Builders Agreement dated 23.08.2011 for developing the property specified in the Builders Agreement.

¶14

To resolve the dispute between the parties, arbitration was provided for in the contract. The petitioners raised a claim and ultimately the Arbitrator was appointed under Section 11 of the A&C Act by this court on 11.05.2021. On 18.09.2023, the petitioners stated before the Arbitrator that a petition would be filed for extension of the mandate. The present petition was filed in November, 2025 seeking extension of the mandate by six months.

¶15

This is a digitally signed order.

¶16

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 13/02/2026 at 10:55:12

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the filing of the petition was delayed due to the conduct of the counsel who assured the filing of the petition but failed to do so.

¶18

Learned counsel for the respondent opposes the prayer contending that there is a delay of two years in filing the petition as the statement was made before the Arbitrator in September, 2023. It is submitted that no sufficient cause has been pleaded in the petition to explain the delay. 6. The whatsapp messages and communications exchanged with the counsel are annexed with the petition. The claimants are family members and during the pendency of the arbitration proceedings three claimants out of five died and the LRs were brought on record. The proceedings were being looked after by Sh. Alok Agrawal who passed away. The LRs continued with the counsel engaged by Sh. Alok Agrawal. The learned counsel was instructed to file a petition for extension of the mandate but despite repeated assurances the petition was not filed. Learned counsel stopped attending calls and messages sent by the petitioners and the present petition was filed after engaging a new counsel. The law is well settled that the parties should not be made to suffer for the lapses or conduct of the counsel. Reference in this regard can be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (2015) 4 SCC 334. 7. It would not be out of place to mention that no limitation is prescribed under Section 29A of the A&C Act for filing the petition. The period between the statement made before the Arbitrator and the filing of the application has been sufficiently explained.

¶19

In view of the above and considering that the technicality when treated with substantial justice the latter should prevail, the mandate is

¶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 13/02/2026 at 10:55:12

¶22

extended by six months from today. The intervening period is regularized.

¶23

The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶24

AVNEESH JHINGAN, J

¶25

FEBRUARY 10, 2026 Ch

¶26

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 13/02/2026 at 10:55:12

Vandana Agrawal & Ors. v. Fam Bhagat Infratech (P) Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vandana Agrawal & Ors. v. Fam Bhagat Infratech (P) Ltd.

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

Shivhare Road Lines Vs Container Corporation of India Ltd.

Sterlite Technologies Limited Vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited & Anr.

Praxair India Private Limited Vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited

Affle 3I Limited Vs Talent Unlimited Online Services Private Limited

Ramesh Kumar Ranaik Vs M/S Shyam Indus Power Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

Sanjeev Ratna & Ors. Vs Mr Bharat Kumar & Ors.

Paramount Wires and Cables Ltd. Vs Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited

Simplex Infrastructure Limited Vs National Highways Authority of India

Shivhare Road Lines Vs Container Corporation of India Ltd.

Sterlite Technologies Limited Vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited & Anr.

Smt. Ish Arora & Anr. Vs M/S Ciarr Industries Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

Genesis Finance Company Limited 4 Mmtc Stc Market Geetanjali New Delhi 110017 Vs Pankaj Saran

Orchid Global Private Limited Vs Mother Dairy Fruit and Vegetable Pvt. Ltd.

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