$~52 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 22.01.2026 + O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 832/2025 M/S TELEXCELL INFORMATION SYSTEMS LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Rizwan, Ms. Sachi Chopra and Ms. Kriti, Advocates.

versus M/S TATA ADVANCED SYSTEMS LIMITED ....Respondent Through: Mr. Vijay Purohit, Mr. Shivam Pandey and Mr. Tanmay Arora, Advocates. CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR JUDGEMENT (Oral)

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996¹, seeking extension of the mandate of the learned Arbitral Tribunal for a further period of at least six months for making and publishing the arbitral award in Case Ref.

No. DIAC/2118/07-18.

BRIEF FACTS:

2. The learned Sole Arbitrator entered reference in the said arbitration in the year 2019, and pleadings were completed. The matter thereafter progressed to the stage of evidence.

3. Since the statutory period prescribed under Section 29A of the Act was expiring, the Respondent herein had earlier approached this Court by filing O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 38/2021, which came to be decided vide Order dated 01.02.2021, whereby this Court extended the mandate of the learned Sole Arbitrator up to 01.06.2021, taking note of delays occasioned due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

4. Despite the extension, the arbitral proceedings could not be concluded within the extended period. Subsequently, insolvency proceedings were initiated against the Petitioner under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, IBC, culminating in admission of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process, CIRP by the National Company Law Tribunal, NCLT in the case bearing IB No.411/ND/2020 on

05.10.2021. A moratorium under Section 14 of the IBC ensued.

5. During the pendency of the CIRP, further progress in the arbitration did not take place. The learned Sole Arbitrator recorded on 22.09.2022 that the mandate under Section 29A of the Act expired, even after accounting for the benefit of limitation extensions granted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court during the pandemic vide Order dated

10.01.2022.

6. Thereafter, the Respondent filed another petition under Section 29A of the Act before this Court, being O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 105/2023, seeking extension of the mandate of the learned Sole Arbitrator.

7. During the pendency of O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 105/2023, 1 Act the resolution plan in respect of the Petitioner was approved by the NCLT vide Order dated 30.05.2023. When the matter came up before this Court on 04.09.2023, the Court recorded the submission that, in view of the approved resolution plan, the continuation of arbitral proceedings was being questioned, and the matter was adjourned to enable the parties to take instructions.

8. Ultimately, on 12.12.2023, O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 105/2023 was dismissed as withdrawn, without any adjudication on merits and without any finding that the arbitral proceedings stood terminated or abandoned.

9. In the interregnum, the arbitral proceedings were listed before the learned Sole Arbitrator on 09.11.2023, where it was observed that once the mandate has expired by efflux of time, it could be revived only by an order of the Court. The learned Arbitrator adjourned the matter in anticipation of appropriate orders from this Court.

10. After the withdrawal of O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 105/2023, the learned Sole Arbitrator passed an Order dated 22.12.2023, recording that since the mandate had expired and no extension order was in force, the date fixed stood cancelled.

11. Aggrieved by the Order dated 22.12.2023, the Petitioner thereafter approached this Court by filing O.M.P.(T)(COMM.) 11/2024 under Sections 14 and 15 of the Act, seeking substitution of the learned Sole Arbitrator.

12. The said O.M.P.(T)(COMM.) 11/2024 remained pending and was ultimately taken up on 13.08.2025, when this Court permitted the Petitioner to withdraw the same, while expressly granting liberty to file a fresh petition under Section 29A of the Act.

13. The