O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 453/2026 $~24 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010266112026 + O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 453/2026 OIL AND GAS PLANT ENGINEERS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Shakeel Sarwar Wani, Mr. Imbisaat Liyaqat, Advs. versus STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LIMITED .....Respondent Through: Ms. Gunjan Mathur, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD O R D E R % 18.09.2026 1. The present application has been filed under Section 29A (4) & (5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (herein referred to as ‘the Act’) seeking an extension of the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal for a period of six months for concluding the arbitral proceedings and for passing an award. 2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts leading to the present petition are as under: i. The Petitioner, M/s Oil & Gas Plant Engineers (India) Pvt. Ltd and the Respondent, Steel Authority of India Ltd. (SAIL), entered into a Contract Agreement dated 19.04.2011. Following the dispute arising between the parties under the said Agreement, the Petitioner invoked Article 9, i.e. the arbitration clause of the Agreement, by serving a 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 28/09/2026 at 11:34:47 O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 453/2026 legal notice on 25.12.2023. ii. Following the invocation notice under Section 21 of the Act, the Petitioner then filed a petition being Arb. P. 912/2024 under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Subsequently, on 04.07.2024, the High Court of Delhi disposed of the petition and appointed Shri J.R. Aryan (Retd. District & Sessions Judge) as the Sole Arbitrator, with proceedings conducted under the aegis of the Scope Forum of Conciliation and Arbitration, i.e. SCFA. iii. It is stated that the Arbitrator entered reference on 29.07.2024. The Petitioner herein submitted its Statement of Claim on 03.09.2024. The Respondent submitted its Statement of Defence on 13.11.2024. It is stated that on 26.11.2025, the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal was extended by mutual consent for a period from 13.11.2024 to 13.05.2026 iv. During this period, Cross-examination of witnesses concluded on 21.01.2026 with the completion of the Respondent's witness RW-2. It is stated that the tribunal scheduled final arguments for March 7 and 9, 2026 (for Claimant), March 23 and 24, 2026 (for Respondent), and March 25, 2026 (for rebuttal/counter). v. It is stated that during this period, there were delays due to medical emergencies and unforeseen events such as the hospitalization of the Petitioner’s counsel, the director of the Petitioner undergoing surgery and subsequent events which led to rescheduling of the hearings. vi. On 25.04.2026, the Petitioner presented part final arguments virtually; however, the arguments could not be completed before 13.05.2026, i.e., the day on which the extended mandate was expiring. 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 28/09/2026 at 11:34:47 O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 453/2026 vii. Conclusively, with the Respondent confirming its no objection to the extension of mandate, the Tribunal fixed 01.07.2025 to 03.07.2026 for concluding final arguments. Hence, the Petitioner filed the present petition seeking extension of the Arbitral Tribunal's mandate for a further six-month period, effective from 13.05.2026, to enable the conclusion of final arguments and the passing of the Arbitral Award. 3. It is the case of the Petitioner that the registered office of both the parties is in Delhi and hence this Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present Petition, and an Arbitrator may be appointed by this Court. 4. Per contra, the Learned Counsel for the Respondent opposes the present application for extension on the ground that this Court does not have the jurisdiction to extend the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal for the simple reason that the Arbitration clause in the Agreement between the parties provides that the seat/exclusive jurisdiction of Arbitration has been agreed between the parties to be at Durg, Chhattisgarh. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment of this Court in CARS 24 Service Pvt. Ltd. v. Cyber Approach Workspace LLP, 2020 SCC OnLine Del 1720. 5. For the sake of reference, the arbitration clause in the agreement is reproduced hereunder:- “Article 9 Conciliation and Arbitration (Reference GCC Clause 6) 9.1 Conciliation and Arbitration Any disputes, differences, whatsoever, arising between the parties out of or relating to the construction, meaning, scope, operation or effect of this Contract shall be settled between the Employer and the Contractor amicably. If however, the Employer and the Contractor 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 28/09/2026 at 11:34:47 O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 453/2026 are not able to resolve their disputes / differences amicably as aforesaid the said disputes / differences shall be settled by Conciliation, failing which, through Arbitration. Conciliation shall be resorted to prior to invoking Arbitration. The Arbitration Clause is to be invoked by the parties to the Contract only on failure of conciliation proceedings to amicably settle the disputes. The arbitration shall be governed in accordance with The Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") of India. The language of Arbitration shall be English. Subject to the stipulations made hereinabove, Arbitration shall be conducted as per forum specified below: 9.2 Arbitration of contracts, with Indian parties, where contract value is more than Indian Rs. 5 crore shall be governed by the Rules of Indian Council of Arbitration (ICA)/ "SCOPE Forum of Conciliation and Arbitration" (SCFA) as agreed by the party. The venue shall be New Delhi. During the pendency of the Conciliation or Arbitration proceedings both the parties (i.e. the Contractor and the Employer) shall continue to perform their contractual obligations. The arbitral tribunal shall give reasons for its award. The tribunal shall apportion the cost of arbitration between the parties, the award rendered in any arbitration hereunder shall be final and binding upon the parties, the parties agree that neither party shall have any right to commence or maintain any suit or legal proceeding concerning any dispute under this agreement until the dispute has been determined in accordance with 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 28/09/2026 at 11:34:47 O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 453/2026 the arbitration proceeding provided for herein and then only to enforce or facilitate the execution of an award rendered in such arbitration. Unless otherwise mentioned, the Arbitration shall be held at Durg, Chhattisgarh, India exclusive jurisdiction over all matter of dispute. The court of Durg, Chhattisgarh, India (with exclusion of all other courts) shall have exclusive jurisdiction over all matter of dispute.” 6. A perusal of the said clause indicates that the parties have indeed agreed that the seat of arbitration shall be at Durg, Chhattisgarh, and that the venue of the proceedings shall be New Delhi. 7. However, during the course of proceedings, a subsequent development has been brought to the notice of the Court by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner. The attention of this Court has been drawn to the Order dated 04.07.2024 by which the Arbitral Tribunal was constituted by this Court. The relevant portion of the said Order dated 04.07.2024 reads as under: “18. Since there were disputes between the parties, the petitioner invoked the arbitration clause vide legal notice dated 25.12.2023. 19. Issue notice. 20. Mr Srivastava, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of the respondent and states that he has no objection to the petition being allowed. However, he states that the arbitration may be governed by the rules of Scope Forum of Conciliation and Arbitration ('SCFA').” 8. A perusal of the said order reveals that the Respondent herein has 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 28/09/2026 at 11:34:47 O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 453/2026 explicitly given its consent for the appointment of an arbitrator by this Court despite the fact that the seat of arbitration/exclusive jurisdiction has been conferred on the Courts in Durg, Chhattisgarh. It is well settled that the Parties by Agreement can amend any requirement under the Arbitration Agreement. It is also equally well settled that unlike pecuniary and subject matter jurisdiction, the Parties can waive the objections to territorial jurisdiction and can agree on an agreeable/alternate territorial jurisdiction. Section 4 of the Act is reproduced hereunder: “4. Waiver of right to object. - A party who knows that- (a) any provision of this Part from which the parties may derogate, or (b) any requirement under the arbitration agreement, has not been complied with and yet proceeds with the arbitration without stating his objection to such non- compliance without undue delay or, if a time limit is provided for stating that objection, within that period of time, shall be deemed to have waived his right to so object. ” 9. A perusal of this section demonstrates that parties by their conduct can waive the applicability of any provisions of the Act as well as any requirement under the Arbitration Agreement. 10. Another contention raised by the Learned Counsel for the Respondent is that the present petition under 29A (4) & (5) is not maintainable before this Court for the reason that once an appointment under Section 11 has been done by a Court, the Court becomes functus officio, and for seeking an extension of mandate under Section 29, the appropriate Court is the Court 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 28/09/2026 at 11:34:47 O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 453/2026 under Section 2(1)(e). Reliance has been placed on the Judgment of Jagdeep Chowgule v. Sheela Chowgule & Ors., (2026) 5 SCC 667. 11. Section 2(1)(e) of the Act is reproduced hereunder: “2.(1)(e) "Court" means (i) in the case of an arbitration other than international commercial arbitration, the principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction in a district, and includes the High Court in exercise of its ordinary original civil jurisdiction, having jurisdiction to decide the questions forming the subject-matter of the arbitration if the same had been the subject-matter of a suit, but does not include any Civil Court of a grade inferior to such principal Civil Court, or any Court of Small Causes; (ii) in the case of international commercial arbitration, the High Court in exercise of its ordinary original civil jurisdiction, having jurisdiction to decide the questions forming the subject matter of the arbitration if the same had been the subject-matter of a suit, and in other cases, a High Court having jurisdiction to hear appeals from decrees of courts subordinate to that High Court;” 12. A perusal of the section indicates that in domestic arbitrations, the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction in a district, and includes the High Court in exercise of its ordinary original civil jurisdiction, having jurisdiction to decide the questions forming the subject-matter of the arbitration. 13. The contract stipulated the seat to be at Chhattisgarh, subsequently, this Court on 04.07.2024 predicated by the no objection of the Respondent had appointed the Arbitrator. This distinctly demonstrates that the parties have by conduct agreed the seat to be at New Delhi. In absence of 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 28/09/2026 at 11:34:47 O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 453/2026 contrary indication, the seat of arbitration is presumed to have jurisdiction over the subject-matter of arbitration. 14. As the seat has subsequently, by conduct, been agreed between the parties to be at New Delhi, this Court being the Court under Section 2(1)(e) could certainly extend that mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal. 15. In light of the above, this Court is inclined to allow the present petition. The mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal is extended for a further period of nine months from today. 16. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed, pending applications if any are disposed of. SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J SEPTEMBER 18, 2026 vg 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 28/09/2026 at 11:34:47