The Delhi High Court dismissed a petition filed under Section 29A(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking a six-month extension of the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal in the dispute between Rajesh Gupta and M/s OYO Hotels and Homes Pvt. Ltd.
The Tribunal had entered reference on March 14, 2022, and its first sitting was held on May 14, 2022. Final arguments by the claimant commenced on October 20, 2023, after which the parties attempted mediation. However, mediation failed, as recorded by the Tribunal on December 18, 2023, where it also directed that an application for extension of mandate be filed.
Despite repeated reminders from both the Tribunal and the respondent (emails dated February 2, 2024 and March 7, 2024), the petitioner failed to take timely steps. Although his counsel indicated on March 8, 2024 that they would approach the High Court, no action was taken until a draft petition was circulated on October 1, 2024, and even then, the actual petition was filed only on February 10, 2025.
Before the Court, the petitioner’s counsel argued that the delay was due to lapses by previous counsel and that the petitioner should not suffer on that account.
The Court, however, emphasized that Section 29A was enacted to ensure the timely completion of arbitral proceedings, citing Rohan Builders (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Berger Paints India Ltd., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2494. It observed that the petitioner had not offered any satisfactory explanation for the delay, despite repeated reminders, and had failed in his obligation to approach the Court in time.
Holding that granting an extension in such circumstances would defeat the very objective of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 i.e. the speedy disposal of dispute, the Court dismissed the petition along with all pending applications.
Appearances:
Petitioner: Mr. Sachin Bansal, Adv.
Respondent: Mr. Chaitanya Kaushik, Adv. Mr. Avinash K Singh, Adv. Ms. Seema Mehta, Adv. Mr. Saurabh Pal, Adv. Ms. Vidhi Uppal, Adv.