Back
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
LARSEN AND TOUBRO LIMITED – Appellant
Versus
IIC LIMITED & ANR. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. These four petitions raise an important issue concerning the interpretation of Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter ‘1996 Act’). The parties in all the four petitions are set out in the following table:
| Case Number | Petitioner | Respondents | Project |
| O.M.P.(MISC.) (COMM.) 426/2023 | Larsen and Toubro Limited | IIC Ltd. & RPL | EBOP Nashik |
| O.M.P.(MISC.) (COMM.) 427/2023 | Larsen and Toubro Limited | IIC Ltd. & RPL | EBOP Amravati |
| O.M.P.(MISC.) (COMM.) 20/2024 | Larsen and Toubro Limited | Sinnar Thermal Power Limited & RPL. | CHP Nashik |
| O.M.P.(MISC.) (COMM.) 637/2023 | Larsen and Toubro Limited | Elena Power and Infrastructure Limited & RPL. | CHP Amravati |
The facts in each of the four petitions are as under:
O.M.P.(MISC.) (COMM.) 426/2023
3. The Petitioner- Larsen & Toubro Ltd. (hereinafter, L&T) was awarded a Letter of Intent (hereinafter, ‘LoI’) dated 5th October, 2010 in respect of the Thermal Power Plant located at Sinnar, Nasik, Maharashtra, India (hereinafter, ‘Nashik Project’). The Letter of Award (hereinafter, ‘LoA’) is dated 19th October, 2010 with respect to the said Nashik Project. Further, in pursuance of
The Court may extend the mandate of an arbitral tribunal even without consent from all parties if justified by sufficient cause, emphasizing the importance of continuity in arbitration proceedings.
The requirement of consent of the parties for extension of mandate under Section 29A(3) does not apply to Section 29A(4) and (5). The power to extend the period specified in Section 29A(1) or the ext....
Extension of Sole Arbitrator's mandate under the Arbitration Act requires sufficient cause, unaffected by procedural misconduct by arbitrator, especially when delays arise from the respondent's actio....
The Court established the applicability of section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and affirmed its jurisdiction to extend the arbitral tribunal's mandat....
The court's power to extend an arbitrator's mandate under Section 29-A is not limited by the timing of the application, allowing for extensions even after termination.
Court extends arbitrator's mandate under Section 29A(5) for sufficient cause including clerical errors, procedural delays, pandemic effects not attributable to parties, ensuring logical conclusion of....
The court clarified that the power to extend the mandate of the arbitrator under Section 29A(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act can be exercised even after the expiry of the specified period,....
Court extends arbitrator's mandate post-termination under Section 29A(5) for sufficient cause like procedural and administrative delays not attributable to petitioner, ensuring practical, expeditious....
(1) Extension of mandate of Arbitrator(s) – Application under Section 29A(5) for extension of mandate of Arbitrator is maintainable even after expiry of time under Sections 29A(1) and (3) and even af....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
