$~36

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Date of decision: 13^th February, 2024

+

O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 92/2024 and I.A. 3399/2024

AJANTA SOYA LIMITED

..... Petitioner

Through:

Mr. Saaket Jain & Ms. Shivangi

Anand, Advs. (M: 8373925860)

versus

THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY

..... Respondent

Through:

Mr. Asim Vidyarthi, Adv. (M:

9821363939)

CORAM:

JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

I.A. 3399/2024 (for exemption)

2. This

is

an

application

seeking

exemption

from

filing

originals/certified/cleared/typed

copies

of

documents, etc. Original

documents shall be produced/filed, if sought, strictly as per the provisions of

the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate

Division of High Courts Act, 2015 and the Delhi High Court (Original Side)

Rules, 2018.

3.

Exemption is allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

4.

Accordingly, the application is disposed of.

O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 92/2024

5. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner under Section

29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter, ‘the Act’),

seeking extension of mandate of the arbitral tribunal till 15th April, 2024.

6. The Arbitral Tribunal was constituted in this matter on 29th October,

Digitally Signed

By:RAHUL

Signing Date:14.02.2024

18:24:24

Signature Not Verified

2020 and as per the ld. Counsel for the parties, the mandate expired in

February, 2023 after excluding the period of the COVID-19 pandemic. It is

noted that there is substantial amount of delay, despite the extension taken as

per the order of the Supreme Court in Suo Moto Writ Petition (C) No.

3/2020, which excluded the period from 15^th March, 2020, to 28^th February,

2022. 7.

It is surprising to note that parties have approached this Court almost

after a one year’s delay for seeking extension of the mandate. Ld. Counsel

for the parties submit that after February, 2023, the evidence was also

recorded. However, the parties inadvertently missed out on giving consent

for an extension of six months.

8. Even taking the six months period to be impliedly agreed to between

the parties, the application is being moved with more than six months’

delay. Though there can be no doubt that under Section 29A of the Act,

extension can be granted by the Court, such a long period of delay in filing

such an application is contrary to the spirit of Section 29A under the Act.

The same has been elaborated in the case of Department of Transport,

GNCTD v. Star Bus Services Pvt. Ltd. (2023 SCC OnLine Del 2890). The

relevant extracts of the said judgement are set out below:

“Spirit of the Arbitration Act

30.The Arbitration Act was enacted for providing

a mechanism to the public to resolve their disputes in

a process less rigorous, technical and formal than

that of litigation. It has proven to be easier, more

accessible, efficient and even cost effective for the

parties involved, whether at an individual level or at

the level of a business or corporation.

Digitally Signed

By:RAHUL

Signing Date:14.02.2024

18:24:24

Signature Not Verified

31. The alternative dispute mechanism is not only

32. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of

held as under:—

either of the parties.”

33. Therefore, expeditious and effective disposal of

matters are most certainly considered the primary

objectives of the enactment of the Arbitration Act. To

Digitally Signed

By:RAHUL

Signing Date:14.02.2024

18:24:24

Signature Not Verified

xxx xxx xxx

117. The award in matters is expressly mandated to be

118. Section 29A(4) stipulates that if the award is not

made within the period specified in sub-section (1) or

the extended period specified under sub-section (3),

the mandate of the arbitrator(s) shall terminate

unless the court has, either prior to or after the expiry

of the period so specified, extended the p