RAMKY INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED v. ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT
O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.)/124/2026 · 2026-04-01
Avneesh Jhingan
body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 1015 (DEL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 1015 (DEL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
$~32 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 124/2026
RAMKY INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Bhabna Das, Mr. Krishna Dev J & Mr. Vishnu Kanth, Advs.
versus
ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT .....Respondent Through: Counsel (appearance not given).
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN
O R D E R %
01.04.2026
1. This is a petition for extension of the mandate of the arbitral tribunal under Section 29A of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short „1996 Act‟).
2. The parties in consonance with the arbitration clause in General Conditions of Contract (for short „GCC‟) referred the dispute for arbitration. The arbitrator on the first preliminary hearing on 22.09.2023 fixed the seat of arbitration at Delhi and left the venue to be decided from time to time. The relevant portion of order is reproduced below:
“6. Seat of Arbitration: The seat of Arbitration shall be at Delhi. The venue of arbitration shall be decided with Parties from time to time. The language of arbitration proceedings shall be English.”
3.
Learned counsel for the non-applicant contends that as per the 20.6 of the GCC, the seat of arbitration was to be Ranchi, Jharkhand therefore this 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 06/04/2026 at 10:58:42
Court does not have territorial jurisdiction however fairly contends that till date the fixation of seat of arbitration at Delhi has not been challenged and seeks liberty to avail remedies in accordance with law.
4. Considering that undisputedly the seat as on date of arbitration is at Delhi and therefore this Court has jurisdiction to extend the mandate as per Section 29A of the 1996 Act.
5. For the reasons mentioned therein, the mandate is extended by one year.
6. The petition is disposed of.
AVNEESH JHINGAN, J APRIL 1, 2026 ‘JK’
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 06/04/2026 at 10:58:42