Delhi High Court
O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.)/607/2026 of XAPER WASTE SOLUTION PVT LTD Vs DELHI CANTONMENT BOARD on 7 August 2026
HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010360112026 + O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 607/2026 XAPER WASTE SOLUTION PVT LTD .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Manreet Kaur and Ms. Deeplakshmi M., Advocates. versus DELHI CANTONMENT BOARD .....Respondent Through: Mr. Ankur Mishra and Mr. Gurpreet Singh,
$~30
*
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
CNR No. DLHC010360112026
+
O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 607/2026
XAPER WASTE SOLUTION PVT LTD
.....Petitioner
Through:
Mr.
Manreet
Kaur
and
Ms.
Deeplakshmi M., Advocates.
versus
DELHI CANTONMENT BOARD
.....Respondent
Through:
Mr. Ankur Mishra and Mr. Gurpreet
Singh, Advocates for Respondent
Delhi Cantonment Board.
Mr. Gaurav Mishra, CGSC.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
1
Decisions referred to
In this index
1
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
O R D E R
%
07.08.2026
1. The present petition under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has been filed by the Petitioner for extending the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal.
2. Material on record indicates that parties entered into an Agreement dated 24.01.2022 for supply, installation and operation of the plant. Disputes between the parties arose regarding payment and blacklisting. A Petition being ARB. P. 348/2024 under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was filed and this Court vide Order dated 12.03.2024 constituted the Arbitral Tribunal.
3. The pleadings have been completed on 09.12.2024 and further proceedings have also been conducted.
4. It is stated that after the period of one year came to an end, the parties had mutually extended the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal for a period of six months. The said period of six months came to end on 10.12.2025 and therefore, the Petitioner has approached this Court seeking extension of mandate.
5. It is stated that the matter has been kept for arguments.
6. Learned Counsel for the Respondent states that the Respondent does not have any objection for the extension of mandate. It is stated that any of the averments to prayer other than extension of the mandate cannot be permitted.
7. 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.
8. In view of the fact that the matter is at the stage of final arguments and since substantial time and money has been spent in arbitration proceedings, this Court is inclined to extend the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal till 31.12.2026 so as to enable the Arbitral Tribunal to conclude the arbitration proceedings and pronounce the arbitral award. Further, the period from 10.12.2025 till today is regularized.
9. Needless to state that all the rights and contentions of the parties are kept open to be adjudicated on its own merits and all other allegations made in the instant petition regarding the conduct of the Respondent, which are not germane to the Petition, are eschewed.
10. The petition is disposed of along with the pending applications, if any. SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J AUGUST 07, 2026 Prateek