O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 720/2026 Page 1 of 3 $~60 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010431802026 + O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 720/2026 ADITYA BIRLA CAPITAL LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Ravi Gupta, Senior Advocate with Ms. Muskaan Mehra and Ms. Ishita Gupta, Advocates versus SIDHARTHA EDUCATIONAL AND WELFARE SOCIETY & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Manish Gupta, Ms. Manaswee Gupta, Mr Prateek Gupta, Ms. Phallya Jain, Ms. Shivani Tripathi, Mr. Ravi, Advocates for Respondent No. 1, 2, 4 & 5. Mr. Harsh Sharma, Advocate for Respondent No.3 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD O R D E R % 14.09.2026 1. The present petition under Section 29A(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as “A&C Act”) has been filed by the Petitioner for extending the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal. 2. Material on record indicates that in petitions being ARB P.1388/2022 filed under Section 11 of the A&C Act and O.M.P. (I)(COMM.) 398/2021 filed under Section 9 of the A&C Act, with the consent of the Parties, an Arbitral Tribunal consisting of a Sole Arbitrator was constituted by this Court on 29.11.2022. On 22.12.2022, the Arbitral Tribunal entered upon 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 16/09/2026 at 12:21:19 O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 720/2026 Page 2 of 3 reference. On 21.10.2023, the Arbitral Tribunal forfeited the right of Respondent Nos.1, 2, 4 & 5 to file Statement of Defence and directed that Respondent No. 3's objections would be considered at the final hearing. 3. Material on record further indicates that settlement proceedings were going on between the Parties, however, the said proceedings had failed. Since the settlement proceedings failed, the Arbitral Tribunal recused itself and terminated the mandate of the Tribunal under Section 14(1)(b) of the A&C Act. Thereafter, this Court constituted another Arbitral Tribunal and extended the mandate for 12 months from 08.09.2025 till 08.09.2026. Applications filed under Section 16 of the A&C Act were heard and rejected by the Arbitral Tribunal on 17.11.2025. It is also stated that in the arbitration proceedings, certain adjournments were taken on behalf of Respondent No.3 due to ill health of Counsel for the Respondent No.3 and his family. It is stated that certain applications were heard in the month of February, 2026 and those applications were disposed of in the month of March, 2026 by the Arbitral Tribunal. It is stated that evidence is now being recorded since July, 2026 onwards. 4. Learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No.3 states that he has no objection to the present petition. 5. Learned Counsel appearing for Respondent Nos.1, 2, 4 & 5 vehemently opposes the present petition on three grounds being (i) the Arbitral Tribunal has not recorded that the adjournments were being taken because of conciliation proceedings; (ii) despite the fact that the mandate came to an end on 08.09.2026, the Arbitral Tribunal proceeded further without any formal extension of mandate; and (iii) despite the fact that there are several other applications pending, the Arbitral Tribunal has proceeded 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 16/09/2026 at 12:21:19 O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 720/2026 Page 3 of 3 to start recording of evidence. 6. In the opinion of this Court, none of the aforesaid objections can be considered in the present petition filed under Section 29A of the A&C Act. These are primarily objections which can be taken after the Award is passed. 7. The powers under Section 29A(6) of the A&C Act is normally exercised by the Courts only when the Courts find that there is an unnecessary delay in continuation of the arbitration proceedings or that the Arbitral Tribunal is not diligent in pursuing the matter and in that case, the Courts can substitute the Arbitral Tribunal. In the opinion of this Court, none of these considerations arise in the present case at this juncture. 8. The Apex Court in Rohan Builders (India) Private Limited v. Berger Paints India Limited, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2494, has held that an application for extension of the time period for passing an arbitral award under Section 29A(4) read with Section 29A(5) is maintainable even after the expiry of the twelve-month or the extended six-month period, as the case may be. 9. In view of the facts of the present case, this Court is inclined to regularize the period from 08.09.2026 till today and extend the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal for a period of 09 months from today i.e., till 14.06.2027, so that the award can be pronounced. 10. The petition is disposed of, along with the pending applications, if any. SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J SEPTEMBER 14, 2026 S. Zakir 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 16/09/2026 at 12:21:19