$~19 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: 07^th May, 2024 + O.M.P. (MISC.) 6/2024 M/S POWER MECH PROJECTS LTD ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Naresh Markanda, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Rajesh Markanda, Mr. Keshri Kumar, Mr. Rohan Markanda, Ms.

Aviral Setia, Advs. (M:9501031506)

versus M/S DOOSAN POWER SYSTEMS INDIA PVT. LTD... Respondent Through: Mr. Shankh Sengupta, Mr. Aubert Sebastian and Mr. Vedant Kumar, Advs. (M:9437506175)

CORAM:

JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

Background and Submissions of ld. Counsels for the parties

2. The present petition has been filed under Sections 29A(4) & (5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter, ‘1996 Act’) by the Petitioner-M/s. Power Mech Projects Ltd., seeking extension of the mandate of the three member Arbitral Tribunal.

3. According to the petition, the parties entered into an Agreement dated 12^th May, 2016 titled ‘Subcontract for Boiler Works of Unit 1,2,3 of BARH STPP-1 (3x660 MW) Balance Work of Main Plant Package (SG &AUX.)’ (hereinafter, ‘Works Contract’). The scope of the said Works Contract included erection, testing & commissioning of balance work of main plant package. The works underlying the said Works Contract was stipulated to be O.M.P. (MISC.) 6/2024 Page 1 of 12 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed completed by 30^th November, 2018, however, according to the petition, works are still being executed. Disputes arose between the parties, and the Petitioner invoked arbitration proceedings in terms of Clause 25 of the Works Contract, under the aegis of the Indian Council of Arbitration, by way of a ‘Request for Arbitration’ dated 10^th May, 2022. A three-member Arbitral Tribunal entered reference on 6^th July, 2022. The petition states that, since the proceedings did not complete within a period of one year in terms of the Section 29A of the 1996 Act, both parties consented for a six-month extension on 10^th October, 2023.

4. According to the Petitioner, in the meantime, mandate of the ld. Arbitral Tribunal expired on 4th February, 2024. Further, the arbitral proceedings are at the stage of cross-examination. Hence, Mr. Markanda, ld. Sr. Counsel for the Petitioner, prays that the mandate of the ld. Arbitral Tribunal be now extended by a further period of 12 months. Since the extended time expired on 4^th February, 2024, the ld. Arbitral Tribunal vide order dated 21^st February, 2024 stated that its mandate had expired and that it would resume proceedings after receiving appropriate orders.

5. Notice was issued in the present petition on 4^th March, 2024, and the Respondent was directed to reply to the same.

6. On behalf of the Respondent-Mr. Sengupta, ld. Counsel has filed a detailed reply on 13^th March, 2024. He contests the present petition seeking extension of the mandate, and submits that the Petitioner’s conduct before the ld. Arbitral Tribunal shows that the Petitioner is deliberately delaying the arbitration proceedings.

7. In fact, according to ld. Counsel for the Respondent, the ld. Arbitral Tribunal itself noted on several occasions, as noted in a communication O.M.P. (MISC.) 6/2024 Page 2 of 12 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed dated 4^th August, 2023, that the Petitioner was taking unnecessary adjournments. As an illustration, ld. Counsel referred to the orders passed by the ld. Arbitral Tribunal on 7^th July, 2023, wherein the Petitioner’s witnesses (Claimant before the ld. Arbitral Tribunal) did not appear, citing ill health. Immediately thereafter, the Petitioner sought an amendment of its claims before the ld. Arbitral Tribunal. Once again, when the matter was listed for the Petitioner’s evidence, an adjournment was sought. However, in a curious twist of events, the order sheet dated 25^th August, 2023, recorded that the application for amendment was being withdrawn, and the matter was to be fixed for the Petitioner’s evidence.

8. Thus, the main plank of the Respondent’