Delhi High Court - Orders
M/S. Supreme Infrastructure India Ltd vs Engineer-In-Chief, Army Headquarter on 28 May, 2025
Author: Jasmeet Singh
Bench: Jasmeet Singh
$~78 & 49
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ O.M.P. (COMM) 15/2021, I.A. 335/2021, I.A. 336/2021, I.A.
5882/2024
M/S. SUPREME INFRASTRUCTURE INDIA LTD. .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ashish Mohan, Sr. Adv. with Mr.
Subhro Prokas Mukherjee, Ms. Tanuja
Sagar, Advs.
versus
ENGINEER-IN-CHIEF, ARMY HEADQUARTER .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Vikram Jetly, CGSC with Ms.
Shreya Jetly, Advs.
49
+ OMP (ENF.) (COMM.) 1/2024
ENGINEER-IN-CHIEF ARMY HEADQUATERS THROUGH
DGMAP .....Decree Holder
Through: Mr. Vikram Jetly, CGSC with Ms.
Shreya Jetly, Advs.
versus
M/S SUPREME INFRASTRUCTURE INDIA LTD THROUGH THE
AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE .....Judgment Debtor
Through: Mr. Ashish Mohan, Sr. Adv. with Mr.
Subhro Prokas Mukherjee, Ms. Tanuja
Sagar, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH
ORDER
% 28.05.2025
O.M.P. (COMM) 15/2021
1. This is a petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ("the Act") challenging the award dated 13.08.2020 passed by the learned arbitrator.
2. Vide the Order dated 14.03.2024 passed by the Coordinate Bench this Court, it was held as under:
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 27/06/2025 at 22:02:38 "2. Mr. Mohan joins issue on the applicability of Section 29A of the Act, as also on the question of whether it could have been estopped from raising a legal question based upon a mandatory statutory provision.
3. Mr. Mohan contends that, in identical circumstances, by an order dated 01.12.2023 in O.M.P.(COMM) 486/2023 between the same parties, an unconditional stay of the award has been granted. It is his contention that in that ease also, the invocation of arbitration was prior to coming into force of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015.
7. Mr. Mohan seeks a stay of enforcement proceedings which have been instituted by the respondent. In view of the fact that award has been stayed in a case which, according to the petitioner, is identical to the present case, the parties are directed to seek a deferment of the execution proceedings until this Court has had an opportunity to consider the matter."
3. The Coordinate Bench of this Court in M/s Chinar Steel Industries v.
Ircon International Limited, OMP(MISC.)(COMM.) 618/2024, order dated 16.08.2024, has held as under:
"2. Mr. S.K. Chandwani, learned counsel for the respondent, who appears on advance notice, states that the respondent has no objection to the continuance of the arbitral proceedings before the learned arbitrator. However, it is his contention that Section 29A of the Act does not apply to the proceedings at hand, as the proceedings were commenced, within the meaning of Section 21 of the Act, well prior to the insertion of Section 29A into the Act.
3. The arbitration clause was invoked by the petitioner on 14.04.2009. As the parties failed to achieve a consensus on the appointment of the arbitral tribunal, the petitioner first approached the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir, under Section 11 of the Act [Arbitration Application 8/2009]. The petition was dismissed for lack of territorial jurisdiction, by an 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 27/06/2025 at 22:02:38 order dated 16.08.2013. A review petition [RPC No. 2J/2013] was also dismissed on 19.07.2018, following which the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir [LPAC No. 5/2018]. The Division Bench dismissed the appeal on the ground of maintainability.
4. The petitioner then approached this Court [in ARB.P. 1019/2022], which was the jurisdictional Court under Section 11 of the Act, and constituted the Arbitral Tribunal by an order dated 20.09.2022.
5. Before the learned Arbitrator, parties have filed their pleadings, led evidence and final hearing is in progress, at the stage of rejoinder arguments by learned counsel for the petitioner/claimant.
6. While Mr. Chandwani, as stated above, does not object to continuation of the proceedings before the learned arbitrator, it is his contention that the facts disclosed above show that the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal is not subject to the time limit provided in Section 29A of the Act. He contends that Section 29A of the Act was inserted by the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 ["the Amending Act"], with effect from 23.10.2015. Section 26 of the Amending Act provided that the provisions thereof would apply to arbitral proceedings commenced thereafter, unless parties agree otherwise. Though Section 26 of the Amending Act has since been repealed, Section 87 has been incorporated in the principal Act, which is to the same effect. The "commencement" of arbitral proceedings is governed by Section 21 of the Act, which states that an arbitral proceeding, in respect of a particular dispute, commences on the date on which the request to refer that dispute is received by the respondent. Mr. Chandwani draws my attention to the judgment of this Court in Republic of India Through Ministry of Defence vs. M/s Agusta Westland International Ltd. [dated 09.01.2019 in CS(COMM) 9/2019] and in Zillion Infraprojecs Pvt. Ltd. Through Anant Saxena vs. Fab-Tach Works & 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 27/06/2025 at 22:02:38 Constructions Pvt. Ltd. [dated 19.12.2023 in O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM) 674/2023], in support of his contentions.
7. The question of applicability of the provisions, appears to be answered in accordance with the submissions of Mr. Chandwani, in the two judgments referred to by him. Although the judgment in Republic of India (supra) was rendered in a civil suit, the suit itself was for a declaration that mandate of the arbitral tribunal had expired under Section 29A of the Act. The Court held that the "commencement" of proceedings is the relevant yardstick for determining applicability of the Section, and is different from the concept of "entering upon the reference" referred to in Section 29A of the Act as it then stood. The Court therefore came to the conclusion that commencement under Section 21 of the Act, having occurred prior to 23.10.2015, would not attract the applicability of Section 29A of the Act. The judgment in Zillion Infraprojecs Pvt. Ltd. (supra) is to the same effect.
8. The only distinction, in the present case, is to the extent that the Arbitral Tribunal was constituted on 20.09.2022, after the insertion of Section 29A of the Act. Having regard to the analysis of the provisions and the judgments of this Court cited above, I am of the view that this distinction is irrelevant. There was admittedly no further notice of invocation after the conclusion of proceedings in the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir, so as to constitute a fresh "commencement" within the meaning of Section 21 of the Act."
4. A perusal of the aforesaid paragraphs shows that in case of invocation prior to 23.10.2015, the provisions of Section 29A of the Act will not be applicable, even if the arbitrator enters reference post 23.10.2015.
5. Mr. Mohan, learned senior counsel for the petitioner/judgment debtor, relied on the judgment in the case of Ellora Paper Mills Limited v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2022) 3 SCC 1.
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 27/06/2025 at 22:02:38
6. On perusal, I am of the view that the judgment of Ellora Paper Mills Limited (supra) does not deal with the provisions of Section 29A of the Act, however it deals with Section 12(5) of the Act.
7. In view of the matter, the issue raised in the order dated 14.03.2024 has categorically been answered by in M/s Chinar Steel Industries (supra) and I agree with the same.
8. For the said reasons, the condition of seeking deferment of the execution proceedings stands vacated.
9. List on 16.09.2025.
O.M.P. (ENF.)(COMM.) 1/2024
10. This is a petition filed under Section 36 of the Act read with Section 151 and Order XXI Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ("the CPC") seeking for enforcement of the arbitral award dated 13.08.2020 passed by the learned arbitrator.
11. The judgment debtor shall file its list of assets in terms of Order XXI Rule 41(2) read with Form No. 16A Appendix E of the CPC.
12. List on 16.09.2025.
JASMEET SINGH, J MAY 28, 2025/DM Click here to check corrigendum, if any 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 27/06/2025 at 22:02:38