M/S J.H. Jewellers & Anr vs M/S Asian Hotels (North) Ltd on 20 December, 2023

[Cites 8, Cited by 0]

Delhi High Court - Orders

M/S J.H. Jewellers & Anr vs M/S Asian Hotels (North) Ltd on 20 December, 2023

1. The present petitions under Section 29A(4) and (5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [hereinafter, "Act"], seek extension of the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal constituted for a composite resolution of disputes between the parties.

2. The procedural history of the arbitration proceedings is briefly set out below:

2.1. On the Petitioners' petitions under Section 11 of the Act, the Court O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 395/2023 and connected matters Page 2 of 6 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 23/12/2023 at 23:41:15 appointed the Arbitral Tribunal on 06th August, 2021,1 who entered reference on 12th September, 2021. The pleadings were completed by 11th March, 2022.

2.2. In the meantime, parties preferred applications under Section 17 of the Act, which were decided by the Tribunal on 23rd April, 2023. Against the said order(s), the Respondent preferred appeals under Section 37(2)(b) of the Act, which were decided on 22nd December, 2022, granting certain reliefs to the Respondent.2 Dissatisfied, the Petitioners approached the Supreme Court through SLP(C) 356/2023 and connected matters. On 13th January, 2023, the appeal was disposed of, bringing an interim arrangement between the parties with respect of removal of goods from the premises in question.

2.3. The Petitioners/ Claimants thereafter filed their affidavits of evidence, and the examination of Petitioners' witnesses was concluded on 14th February, 2023. The Respondent, through affidavit dated 01st March, 2023, informed the Tribunal that they do not wish to examine any witnesses and would contest the proceedings on the basis of the material produced on record. Subsequently, on 06th March, 2023, Petitioners sought to examine a Government Valuer as their witness, which was objected to by the Respondent. After hearing the parties, the Tribunal permitted the said witnesses to testify in the proceedings.

2.4. The permissible time limit for rendering the award concluded on 11th March, 2023. However, in view of the order dated 10th January, 2022 of the Supreme Court in Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, the period 1 In ARB.P. 661/2021 titled M/s Sital Dass Jewellers and Anr. v. Asian Hotels (North) Ltd. and connected matters.

O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 395/2023 and connected matters Page 3 of 6

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 23/12/2023 at 23:41:16 between 15th March, 2020 till 28th February, 2022 stands excluded from the computation of the timeframe prescribed under Section 29A of the Act. 2.5. Later, Petitioners moved an application under Order XI Rules 1, 2 and 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ["CPC"] seeking interrogatories and production of certain documents. Arguments were heard and order was reserved on the application by the Arbitral Tribunal on 09th May, 2023. Vide order dated 13th May, 2023, the Tribunal allowed the Petitioners' applications to a limited extent. Consequently, the Respondent delivered the interrogatories in terms of the Tribunal's directions. 2.6. On 18th July, 2023, the Petitioners filed an application for review of the order dated 13th May, 2023 before the Arbitral Tribunal, along with an application for condonation of delay in filing the review application, which were dismissed by the Tribunal on 21st July, 2023.

2.7. Thereafter, the Petitioners sought certain clarifications to the interrogatories supplied by the Respondent's Director, under Order XI Rules 9,10 and 11 of the CPC. This request was allowed by the Tribunal on 11th August, 2023, directing the Respondent's Director to be produced for viva- voce examination on 18th August, 2023. However, at Respondent's request, the said examination was deferred.

2.8. During this time, as the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal, the present petitions have been filed seeking its extension.

3. Mr. P.K. Agrawal, counsel for the Petitioners, submits that given the stage of the arbitral proceedings and substantial quantum of the time spent and expenses already incurred, the parties would be gravely prejudiced in case the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal is not extended.

In ARB. A. (COMM.) 48/2022 and other connected matters.

O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 395/2023 and connected matters Page 4 of 6

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 23/12/2023 at 23:41:16

4. Ms. Aakanksha Kaul, counsel representing the Respondent, strongly opposes the request, arguing that in view of the inordinate delay in conclusion of the arbitral proceedings, the mandate of the Sole Arbitrator must be terminated, and instead, a Substitute Arbitrator must be appointed in his place for expeditious disposal. To substantiate this submission, Ms. Kaul points out that there was a delay of nearly four months on the Tribunal's part in framing the issues after completion of pleadings. Further, unwarranted extensions were granted to the Petitioners in filing their affidavits of evidence. She argues that there was no stay on the arbitration while the appeal proceedings against the Section 17 order were pending, and therefore, the hearing of the disputes must not have been deferred. Ms. Kaul submits that although the Tribunal was appointed in 2021, the matter is yet to reach the stage of final arguments and thus, the Court must not allow the present petitions. She further states that in related petitions filed by the Respondent under Section 14 of the Act, this Court has terminated the mandate of the Arbitrator, and substituted him with a retired Judge of the Supreme Court.

5. The Court has considered the afore-noted submissions. Indeed, the disputes have not been finally adjudicated by the Arbitral Tribunal within the period stipulated under Section 29A of the Act. However, from a perusal of the record of the arbitral proceedings, as elaborated above, the Court is unable to attribute this delay to the Tribunal. The matters are at an advanced stage, with Petitioners/Claimants' evidence having been closed; the Respondent has decided not to tender any evidence. Considering the above, the Court finds it appropriate to allow the request for extension. Accordingly, the period for conducting the arbitral proceedings is extended O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 395/2023 and connected matters Page 5 of 6 This is a digitally signed order.

6. Disposed of along with pending applications.

SANJEEV NARULA, J DECEMBER 20, 2023 as O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 395/2023 and connected matters Page 6 of 6 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 23/12/2023 at 23:41:16

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Delhi High Court - Orders