Delhi High Court - Orders
Aditya Birla Capital Ltd vs Sidhartha Educational And Welfare ... on 8 September, 2025
Author: Jasmeet Singh
Bench: Jasmeet Singh
$~104 to 106
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 283/2025
ADITYA BIRLA CAPITAL LTD. .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ravi Gupta Sr. Adv., Mr. Ashim
Sood, Mr. Mahip Datta, Mr. Prasad
Dhande, Mr. Ekansh Gupta, Ms.
Sanya, Ms. Muskan Mehra, Advs.
versus
SIDHARTHA EDUCATIONAL AND WELFARE SOCIETY & ORS.
.....Respondents
Through: Mr. Manish Gupta, Adv.
Mr. Harsh Sharma & Mr. Hemant
Sharma, Advs.
105
+ O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 611/2025
ADITYA BIRLA CAPITAL LTD. .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ravi Gupta Sr. Adv., Mr. Ashim
Sood, Mr. Mahip Datta, Mr. Prasad
Dhande, Mr. Ekansh Gupta, Ms.
Sanya, Ms. Muskan Mehra, Advs.
versus
SIDHARTHA EDUCATIONAL AND WELFARE SOCIETY & ORS.
.....Respondents
Through: Mr. Manish Gupta, Adv.
Mr. Harsh Sharma & Mr. Hemant
Sharma, Advs.
106
+ O.M.P. (T) (COMM.) 62/2025
ADITYA BIRLA CAPITAL LIMITED .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ravi Gupta Sr. Adv., Mr. Ashim
Sood, Mr. Mahip Datta, Mr. Prasad
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 12/09/2025 at 22:48:28
Dhande, Mr. Ekansh Gupta, Ms.
Sanya, Ms. Muskan Mehra, Advs.
versus
SIDHARTHA EDUCATIONAL AND WELFARE SOCIETY & ORS.
.....Respondents
Through: Mr. Manish Gupta, Adv.
Mr. Harsh Sharma & Mr. Hemant
Sharma, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH
ORDER
% 08.09.2025
O.M.P. (T) (COMM.) 62/2025
1. This is a petition filed under Section 15(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ("1996 Act") seeking appointment of a substitute Arbitrator on the ground that the Sole Arbitrator has recused herself from the matter on the ground that the parties were not co-operating.
2. The facts are that a Coordinate Bench of this Court in ARB.P. 1388/2022 vide order dated 29.11.2022 appointed the Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties. On 22.12.2022, the Sole Arbitrator entered reference and thereupon, the arbitral proceedings commenced.
3. In or about February 2024, respondent Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5 approached the petitioner with a proposal for settling the disputes and consequently, the petitioner and respondent Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5 discussed the possibility of settlement. Thereafter, a Term Sheet dated 20.02.2024 ("Term Sheet") was drawn up between the petitioner and respondent Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5 and accordingly, a Settlement Deed was also executed on 31.05.2024 ("Settlement Deed"). However, the same failed as the proposed investor backed out of the transaction.
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 12/09/2025 at 22:48:28
4. Since, the process of settlement between the petitioner and respondent Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5 was taking considerable time, the petitioner approached this Court seeking extension of the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal by a period of twelve months from 14.07.2024, which was granted by this Court vide order dated 13.08.2024.
5. Thereafter, time and again adjournments were sought on the ground that the parties were trying to negotiate and come to a settlement. However, the same could not fructify and the petitioner conveyed to the Sole Arbitrator that it will proceed with the arbitration proceedings.
6. The Sole Arbitrator recommenced the proceedings and thereafter, the respondent Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5 contended that the dispute has been settled under the Settlement Deed dated 31.05.2024, which the petitioner denied.
7. Subsequently, vide order dated 16.07.2025, the Sole Arbitrator terminated the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal and observed as under:
"22. The Claimant did not inform the Tribunal that it had executed the Deed of Settlement dated 31.05.2024, which was entered into with all the Respondents more than a year ago. ***
27. In view of the Settlement Deed dated 31.05.2024, and the statement of the Authorised Representative of the Claimant as recorded in Order dated 10.03.2025, that the disputes have been settled, the Receiver appointed by the Tribunal would no longer be required to continue, and accordingly stands discharged. The Receiver is directed to furnish a final statement of accounts with respect to DPS Panipat Main & Junior School to the Parties within a period of 2 weeks from today."
8. Hence, the present petition.
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 12/09/2025 at 22:48:28
9. Mr. Gupta, learned senior counsel for the petitioner states that the delay in arbitral proceedings was on account of the petitioner and the respondent Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5 trying to come to an amicable settlement. He further points that in order dated 04.03.2025, the Sole Arbitrator herself recorded that the time taken for settling the disputes would be excluded for computing the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal under Section 29A of the 1996 Act and despite the same, the Sole Arbitrator vide order dated 16.07.2025 terminated the mandate. He further states that the respondent Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5 are falsely claiming that the matter has been settled and that there are substantial amounts sought to be recovered from the respondents.
10. He further states that the disputes pending in CWP 20124/2023 before the Punjab and Haryana High Court does not concern the subject matter in the present petition and there is no contradiction in the arguments raised before the two Courts. Mr. Manish Gupta, learned counsel for respondent No. 1, 2, 4 and 5 objects to the same.
11. However, in view of the statement of Mr. Ravi Gupta, learned senior counsel as noted above, the present petition needs to be allowed.
12. I am satisfied that there are disputes between the parties which need to be settled through arbitration mechanism. Further, since the Sole Arbitrator has terminated her mandate, a new Arbitrator needs to be appointed for adjudication of the said disputes between the parties.
13. For the said reasons, the petition is allowed, with the following directions:
i) Ms. Justice Shalinder Kaur (Retd. Judge Delhi High Court) (Mob.
No. 9910384702) is appointed as a Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties.
ii) The arbitration will be held under the aegis and rules of the Delhi 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 12/09/2025 at 22:48:28 International Arbitration Centre, Delhi High Court, Sher Shah Road, New Delhi (hereinafter, referred to as the 'DIAC').
iii) The remuneration of the learned Arbitrator shall be in terms of DIAC (Administrative Cost and Arbitrators' Fees) Rules, 2018.
iv) The learned Arbitrator is requested to furnish a declaration in terms of Section 12 of the 1996 Act prior to entering into the reference.
v) It is made clear that all the rights and contentions of the parties, including as to the arbitrability of any of the claim, any other preliminary objection, as well as claims/counter-claims and merits of the dispute of either of the parties and the fact that the respondents are MSME and disputes shall lie before the MSME council are left open for adjudication by the learned Arbitrator.
vi) The parties shall approach the learned Arbitrator within two weeks from today.
vii) The application of the respondent No. 3 for deletion of its name from the array of parties shall be considered by the learned Arbitrator.
14. The present petition is disposed of accordingly. O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 283/2025
15. This is a petition filed under Section 9 of the 1996 Act seeking appointment of a receiver in the matter.
16. In view of the order given above in O.M.P. (T) (COMM.) 62/2025, since a new Arbitrator has been appointed in the matter, it is directed that the present petition shall be treated as an application under Section 17 of 1996 Act and shall be adjudicated by the new Arbitrator so appointed expeditiously and in any case not later than 4 weeks from today.
17. The present petition is disposed of accordingly.
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 12/09/2025 at 22:48:28 O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 611/2025
18. This is a petition filed under Section 29A (5) of the 1996 Act seeking extension of the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal by a further period of twelve months to make and publish the final Award.
19. It is stated that the delays in arbitral proceedings were on account of the petitioner and the respondent Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5 trying to come to an amicable settlement.
20. It is stated that respondent Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5 have no objection to the present petition being allowed.
21. Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 objects to the extension of the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal.
22. I am satisfied that the parties were trying to settle disputes which consumed a considerable time and hence, sufficient cause has been shown for the delay. For the said reasons, the mandate of the new Arbitral Tribunal, as appointed by this Court today in O.M.P. (T) (COMM.) 62/2025, is extended by a period of twelve months from today, to make and publish the Award.
23. The present petition is disposed of accordingly.
24. The reply filed by the respondent No. 3 is taken on record.
JASMEET SINGH, J SEPTEMBER 8, 2025/DM 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 12/09/2025 at 22:48:28