O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 746/2026 1 $~23 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010448402026 + O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 746/2026 M/S PNSC INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Kunwar Chandresh, Ms. Poonam Prasad, Mr. Divyansh Singh, Mr. Daleep Kumar Sah, Mr. Raj Tiwari and Mr. George Lincoln, Advocates. versus UNION OF INDIA .....Respondent Through: Mr. Bijan Kumar Singh, SPC, Mr. Vanshul Pali, G.P. along with Ms. Surabhi Mahajan, Ms. Riya Garg, Ms. Ayushika Mishra, Ms. Nidhi Adarsh and Mr. Kartik Khullar, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN O R D E R % 06.10.2026 1. The petitioner seeks extension of the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal. When the present petition was taken up on 21.09.2026, the following observations were made :- 1. The present petition filed under Section 29A(4) of Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 seeks extension of time for further period from 31.03.2025 to 07.11.2026. It is also prayed that the extension of mandate may be directed to operate retrospectively. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier, a similar application had been filed by them, which was allowed by this Court on 14.10.2024 and the mandate was extended till 31.03.2025. However, an Arbitration Petition was pending consideration before the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Jammu and said petition has now been disposed of on 14.08.2026. 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 09/10/2026 at 13:03:07 O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 746/2026 2 3. The abovesaid Arbitration Petition has been filed by Union of India (respondent herein) for substitution of Arbitrator and the abovesaid petition has been directed to be returned with the order to present it before the competent Court having jurisdiction to determine the controversy raised herein. A finding was also returned that the seat of the arbitration has been fixed at Delhi. 4. It is in the abovesaid backdrop of the facts that the present petition has been filed. 5. Learned counsel appears on advance notice on behalf of respondent/Union of India and seeks time to take requisite instructions in the matter.” 2. Learned counsel for respondent submits that the award has already been duly published by the learned Sole Arbitrator on 24.09.2026. 3. Such fact has not been disputed by learned counsel for petitioner. 4. The mandate has, otherwise, expired on 31.03.2025 and keeping in mind the overall facts and circumstances of the case and with the consent of the learned counsel for both the parties, the present petition is allowed and the interregnum period of the mandate i.e. period from 01.04.2025 till the date of its publication i.e. 24.09.2026 stands regularized. 5. It is, however, clarified that this Court has merely extended the mandate for the abovesaid limited purpose and the order will not be construed as an expression on merits, concerning seat of the Arbitral Tribunal. 6. The petition stands disposed of in aforesaid terms. MANOJ JAIN, J OCTOBER 6, 2026/ss/sk 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 09/10/2026 at 13:03:07 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 09/10/2026 at 13:03:07