ORDER

% 25.01.2024

1. This petition under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for extension of mandate of learned arbitral tribunal is resisted by the respondent on two grounds:-

a. That the petition was filed after the mandate of the learned arbitral tribunal had already been lapsed and;

b. That the petition is unsupported by an authorisation on behalf of the petitioner-company.

2. With regard to the first objection, it may be noted that this Court has taken the view in Wadia Techno-Engineering Services Ltd. v. Director General of Married Accommodation Project (2023 SCC OnLine Del 2990) and ATC Telecom Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. BSNL (2023 SCC OnLine Del 7135) that petitions under Section 29A of the Act can be entertained even after the mandate of the tribunal has lapsed. A contrary view taken by the Calcutta High Court in a judgement dated 06.09.2023 in Rohan Builders (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Berger Paints India Limited (A.P. 328/2023) and connected matters, is pending in the Supreme Court in SLP 23320/2023. In a further order dated 29.08.2023 in Vrindavan Advisory Services LLP v. Deep Shambhulal Bhanushali (A.P. 448/2023), the Calcutta High Court has followed its decision in Rohan Builders, and the Supreme Court by an order dated 06.11.2023 in SLP 24489/2023 has stayed the operation of the impugned judgment. I am informed that the SLP is scheduled to be listed before the Supreme Court on 29.01.2024.

3. In the meanwhile, Ms. Bina Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that this issue does not arise in the present petition as the petition was filed on 03.06.2023, whereas the mandate of the learned tribunal lapsed on 09.06.2023. The fact that the mandate of the tribunal lapsed on 09.06.2023 is not disputed by Ms. Geeta Luthra, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent. However, she submits that the present petition was, in fact, filed only on 20.07.2023, according to the record of the Court.

4. The Registry is directed to report to the Court as to when the present petition was filed, and as to the defects which were marked therein.

5. As far as second aspect is concerned, it appears prima facie that the resolution of the Board of Directors annexed to the petition is a resolution of a company called Transstroy (India) Limited and not of the petitioner company.

6. Ms. Gupta is at liberty to file a further affidavit within one week from today, explaining the discrepancy.

7. List on 15.02.2024. PRATEEK JALAN, J JANUARY 25, 2024 ‘pv’/ PRATEEK JALAN, J JANUARY 25, 2024 ‘pv’/ O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 215/2023