$~50 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: 17.03.2026 + O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 221/2026, I.A. 6577/2026 (For Exemption) & I.A. 6578/2026 (For Delay 100 days in re-filing the petition)

DATA TECHNOSYS(ENGINEERS) PVT. LTD.

.....Petitioner Through: Mr. Love Kumar Gupta and Ms. Saumya Pandey, Advocates.

versus RAIL VIKAS NIGAM LIMITED .....Respondent Through: Mr. Udit Seth and Mr.

Divyanshu Singh, Advocates.

CORAM:

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

HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J.

1. The present Petition has been filed under Section 29A (4) and (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Act seeking extension of mandate or, substitution of the Sole Arbitrator appointed vide Order dated 17.04.2023 in ARB.P. 336/2023 seeking the following reliefs:

“Allow the present petition for extending the mandate of the Ld. Sole Arbitrator appointed by this Hon'ble Court vide order dated 17.04.2023 under Section 29A (4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, for a further period of six months for the purpose of concluding the arbitral proceeding and consequent passing of the arbitral award;

OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE b) That this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to pass a necessary order for substituting the existing Ld. Arbitrator under Section 29A(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and direct the substitute Arbitrator appointed thereof to continue the proceedings from the current stage in accordance with law.

c) Pass such other or further order(s) as this Hon’ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submits that even assuming the judgment in Jagdeep Chowgule v. Sheela Chowgule, 2026 SCC Online SC 124 holds that petitions seeking extension of mandate under Section 29A(4) may be preferred before the learned District Court, the present petition would nonetheless be maintainable before this Court in view of the alternative prayer seeking substitution of the learned Arbitrator under Section 29A(6) of the Act.

3. It is further submitted that the learned Arbitrator has remained seized of the matter since 17.04.2023, yet the arbitral proceedings have not progressed substantially.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties are ad idem that limited progress has been made in the arbitral proceedings and jointly submit that while the arbitral mandate may be extended, it would be appropriate for this Court to substitute the learned Arbitrator.

5. This Court notes that despite the learned Arbitrator having been seized of the matter for a considerable period, the proceedings have not substantially progressed. This Court is informed that only six hearings have taken place since the constitution of the tribunal in

2023, and even the framing of issues is yet to take place.

6. At this juncture, this Court finds it apposite to refer to the judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Poonam Mittal v. M/s Creat ED Pvt. Ltd., 2024:DHC:7312, wherein it was held that the power under Section 29A(6) of the Act, to substitute an arbitrator is to be exercised in the context of ensuring the expeditious conduct of arbitral proceedings, particularly where the Court finds that the proceedings have been unduly delayed while under the seisin of the existing arbitrator. The relevant portion of the said judgment reads as under:

“5.…….To my understanding, Section 29A(6) has to be read in context, as one of the sub-sections in Section 29A. Section 29A is a provision which deals with extension of the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal. Sub-section (6), when read in context, would indicate that the substitution of one or more of the Arbitrators is to be undertaken, under the said sub-section, only where the court is of the view that the proceedings are being unduly delayed by the Arbitrator who is presently in seisin of the proceedings. The obvious intent is to ensure that the exercise of discretion by the Court while ext