High CourtsSingle Bench(2024) 08 DEL CK 1989

TCNS Clothing Company Limited vs A And A Enterprises & Ors.

Delhi High Court · Decided on 30 August 2024

HON’BLE JUDGES
C. Hari Shankar, J
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 641/2023

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

9 paragraphs · 268 words
1.

This is a petition under Section 29A(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 19961 for extension of the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal, which expired in 2023.

2.

Respondents 2 and 3 alone are represented.

3.

Learned counsel for Respondent 3 has raised a grievance that his client was wrongly impleaded by the learned Arbitrator though it was not originally a party to the arbitral proceedings.

4.

The reply filed by Respondent 2 essentially raised a grievance against the manner in which the arbitration proceedings were being conducted. Neither of the replies sets out any reason why the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal should not be extended. The grounds urged in the replies filed by Respondent 2 and Respondent 3 are issues which are extraneous to the aspect of extension of the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal and if so advised would have to be taken up in collateral proceedings.

5.

In view of the aforesaid, this Court is inclined to extend the mandate of the learned Arbitral Tribunal. The mandate shall therefore stand extended by a period of six months from today.

6.

All grievances raised in the replies filed by the respondents shall be kept open to be urged by them in accordance with law before the learned Arbitral Tribunal or otherwise.

7.

Learned counsel for Respondent 3 submits that the petitioner has provided the email ID of Respondent 3 for Respondent 4, which is impermissible. However, the Court notes that all the respondents have been shown to be at the same physical address.

8.

The petition is disposed of accordingly.

Footnotes

  1. 1.“the 1996 Act”, hereinafter