ITEM NO.52 COURT NO.7 SECTION IX S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No.3904/2026 [Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 23-06-2025 in ARB No. 15617/2025 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay]

WALLOP ADVERTISING Petitioner(s)

VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ANR. Respondent(s)

[ TO BE TAKEN UP AT TOP OF THE BOARD ]

(IA No. 30999/2026 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING SLP)

Date : 25-02-2026 This matter was called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.V. VISWANATHAN For Petitioner(s) :

Mr.Mohammad Zain Khan, Adv.

Mr. Mehmood Umar Faruqui, AOR Md. Zeeshan Ali, Adv.

Mr. Ashraf Kapoor, Adv.

For Respondent(s) :

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following

O R D E R

1. Delay condoned.

2. By Order dated 6-7-2018, the High Court had appointed Mr. Sarosh Bharucha as the sole Arbitrator to decide the disputes between the parties arising out of contract agreement dated

11-7-2017.

3. It appears that later time was granted by the High Court to the learned Arbitrator to dispose of the petition under Section 17 Signature Not Verified of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Digitally signed by VISHAL ANAND Date: 2026.03.12 Reason:

by the High Court by which the time earlier granted to pass an order under Section 17 of the Act was extended for a period of four weeks.

5. The impugned Order before us arises from a petition preferred under Section 29-A of the Act.

6. While dismissing the petition, the High Court observed in Paras 2, 3, 4 and 5 respectively:-

“2. Having heard the parties for some time, it is apparent that the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal, formed in relation to disputes and differences in connection with an Agreement dated July 11, 2017, came to an end as early as February 2020, well before the suspension of deadlines effected by the Supreme Court owing to the COVID-19 Pandemic and subsequent lockdown.

3. This Petition has been filed for the first time in 2025, five years later. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the client was perhaps under the impression that an earlier Petition filed in July-2020 was still pending on the docket of this Court - a petition filed by the Petitioner came to be dismissed for want of prosecution. However, there is nothing to show any efforts being made in the last five years, or even after the Covid-19 Pandemic abated (in the past three years) to mention the matter or follow up or to examine its status.

4. Now, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that a new claim is sought to be made and the Petitioner is desirous of amending the statement of claim filed before the Arbitral Tribunal in the last proceedings.

5. The law cannot protect the indolent. The mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal had expired way back in February 2020. This Petition filed five years later, cannot be entertained. Nothing in this order is a comment on the merits of the case, if any, and any residual course of action, if any, as may be available in law. Considering the lapse of the time period between the expiry of mandate and this Petition being filed, this Petition cannot be entertained.”

7. We enquired with the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as regards the status of the arbitral proceedings. The learned counsel has not been able to give a satisfactory reply to the same.

8. In such circumstances, we request the learned Arbitrator to let us know by way of a report as regards the status of the arbitration.

8. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner shall furnish No.3, 2nd Floor, Brady House, 12/14 Veer Nariman Road, Fort, Mumbai (Mobile No.9821034806)

9. Registry to inform about this order to the learned Arbitrator and call for his Report.

10. Post the matter for further hearing on 23-3-2026 on top of the Board.

(VISHAL ANAND) (POOJA SHARMA)

ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS COURT MASTER (NSH)