$~7

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Date of decision: 8^th February, 2024.

+

ARB.P. 48/2024, I.As. 3082/2024 & 3083/2024

CGMP PHARMA N PLANS PRIVATE LIMITED..... Petitioner

Through:

Mr. Keshav Datta, and Mr. Rupal

Luthra, Advs. (M. 9871919591)

versus

HYS LIFECARE LLP

..... Respondent

Through:

Mr.

Malak

Bhatt,

Ms.

Neeha

Nagpal, Mr. Shreyansh Chopra,

Advs (M. 9654661233)

CORAM:

JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. The present petition has been filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration

and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter, ‘the Act’) for appointment of an

Arbitrator. The dispute arises out of a contract between the parties in regard

to services for Concept, Basic, Detailed Engineering, Qualification &

Validation Services for New Formulations Facilities (pharmaceutical

facilities) at Ahmedabad.

3. The case of the Petitioner is that even though the project was not

expressly terminated by the Respondent, the Petitioner had various

outstanding payments which were to be made. An email dated 4th July,

2019 was written to the Respondent mentioning that the total outstanding

amount is for Rs.1,04,85,000/-. This amount, despite repeated reminders,

has not been cleared by the Respondent. In addition, ld. Counsel for the

Petitioner submits that in this sector, it is usual for the contracts to be

Digitally Signed

By:RAHUL

Signing Date:12.02.2024

18:28:44

Signature Not Verified

extended for several years considering the nature of the contract.

4. On the question of limitation, ld. Counsel has relied upon a chart of

payment which shows that the last payment was received on 31st January,

2019. However, insofar as the computation of limitation is concerned, ld.

Counsel submits that the period in terms of the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s

decision in passed in Suo Moto Writ Petition (C) No.3/2020 titled In Re:

Cognizance For Extension of Limitation deserves to be excluded.

5. Ld. Counsel for the Respondent, however, states that in the present

case, the decision in In Re: Suo Moto would not be applicable as neither the

limitation has expired during the Covid period nor does the order of the

Supreme Court apply in respect of invocation of Arbitration under Section

21 of the Act.

6.

However, ld. Counsel for the Petitioner relies on the decisions in

Paramjeet Singh Narula v. Delhi Development Authority (2009 SCC

OnLine Del 2948) and Dr. Reddy Laboratories Limited v. Controller

General of Patents and Trademarks and Ors. (2022 SCC OnLine Del 813)

to state that the entire period of limitation between 15th March, 2020 and

28th February, 2022, is to be clearly excluded.

7. The Court has perused the matter. The question of limitation at this

stage of appointment of the Arbitrator, requires to be considered prima facie

only.

8. The last payment in this case to the Petitioner was received on 31st

January, 2019. The email written by the Petitioner on 4th July, 2019 and ten

reminders of the same were issued by the Petitioner. Finally, the invocation

of the arbitration clause was on 18th October, 2023.

9. Ld. counsel for the Petitioner further submits that even prior to the

Digitally Signed

By:RAHUL

Signing Date:12.02.2024

18:28:44

Signature Not Verified

invocation of the arbitration clause, some work was even being implemented

for the Respondent.

10. A perusal of the decision in In Re: Suo Moto would show that the

period of limitation i.e. 15th March, 2020 to 28th February, 2022 deserves to

be excluded.

11. However, the contention of the Respondent also deserves to be kept

open inasmuch as if the date when limitation expired, did not fall within the

Covid pandemic period, whether the decision in Re: Suo Moto would apply,

would still have to be adjudicated by the ld. Arbitrator.

12. This Court is of the opinion that the petition does not deserve to be

dismissed as being