103 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ARB-465-2025 Date of Decision: 13.08.2025 M/S SOKHI INFRASTRUCTURE AND ANOTHER ….Applicants vs. TENON FACILITY MANAGEMENT INDIA PVT LTD AND OTHERS ….Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL Present: Mr. Nikhil Sabharwal, Advocate (through VC) for the applicants Mr. Vidit Jain, Advocate for the respondents *** JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (ORAL) 1. The applicants through instant application under Section 29A(4) & (5) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short ‘1996’) Act are seeking extension of mandate of Arbitrator. 2. The applicants preferred an application under Section 11 of 1996 Act seeking appointment of an Arbitrator. By order dated 08.03.2019 of this Court, a Sole Arbitrator was appointed to adjudicate the dispute between the parties. The mandate of Arbitrator in terms of Section 29A of 1996 Act has expired. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that Arbitrator was appointed by this Court, thus, this Court can extend mandate of Arbitrator. Both the parties have filed claims/counter claims. The matter has already been heard. PARAMJIT KAUR SAINI 2025.08.13 05:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document ARB-465-2025 -2- 4. Mr. Vidit Jain, Advocate filed Vakalatnama on behalf of the respondents. The same is taken on record. Registry is directed to tag the same at appropriate place. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent does not dispute the afore- stated factual/legal position and prayer of the applicant. 6. In the wake of statement of both sides, the present application is allowed and the mandate of Arbitrator is extended for a period for three months from today. (JAGMOHAN BANSAL) JUDGE 13.08.2025 paramjit Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes Whether reportable: No PARAMJIT KAUR SAINI 2025.08.13 05:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document