[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
Data Technosys(Engineers) Pvt. Ltd vs Rail Vikas Nigam Limited on 17 March, 2026
$~50
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 17.03.2026
+ O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 221/2026, I.A. 6577/2026 (For
Exemption) & I.A. 6578/2026 (For Delay 100 days in re-filing
the petition)
DATA TECHNOSYS(ENGINEERS) PVT. LTD.
.....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Love Kumar Gupta and
Ms. Saumya Pandey,
Advocates.
versus
RAIL VIKAS NIGAM LIMITED .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Udit Seth and Mr.
Divyanshu Singh, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN
SHANKAR
% JUDGEMENT (ORAL)
HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J.
1. The present Petition has been filed under Section 29A (4) and
(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 19961 seeking extension
of mandate or, substitution of the Sole Arbitrator appointed vide Order
dated 17.04.2023 in ARB.P. 336/2023 seeking the following reliefs:
"Allow the present petition for extending the mandate of the Ld.
Sole Arbitrator appointed by this Hon'ble Court vide order dated
17.04.2023 under Section 29A (4) of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996, for a further period of six months for the
Act
purpose of concluding the arbitral proceeding and consequent
passing of the arbitral award;
OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE,
b) That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to pass a
necessary order for substituting the existing Ld. Arbitrator
under Section 29A(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation
Act, 1996, and direct the substitute Arbitrator appointed
thereof to continue the proceedings from the current stage
in accordance with law.
c) Pass such other or further order(s) as this Hon'ble
Court may deem just and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case."
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submits
that even assuming the judgment in Jagdeep Chowgule v. Sheela
Chowgule2 holds that petitions seeking extension of mandate under
Section 29A(4) may be preferred before the learned District Court, the
present petition would nonetheless be maintainable before this Court
in view of the alternative prayer seeking substitution of the learned
Arbitrator under Section 29A(6) of the Act.
3. It is further submitted that the learned Arbitrator has remained
seized of the matter since 17.04.2023, yet the arbitral proceedings
have not progressed substantially.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties are ad idem
that limited progress has been made in the arbitral proceedings and
jointly submit that while the arbitral mandate may be extended, it
would be appropriate for this Court to substitute the learned
Arbitrator.
5. This Court notes that despite the learned Arbitrator having been
seized of the matter for a considerable period, the proceedings have
not substantially progressed. This Court is informed that only six
2026 SCC Online SC 124
hearings have taken place since the constitution of the tribunal in
2023, and even the framing of issues is yet to take place.
6. At this juncture, this Court finds it apposite to refer to the
judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Poonam Mittal v.
M/s Creat ED Pvt. Ltd.3, wherein it was held that the power under
Section 29A(6) of the Act, to substitute an arbitrator is to be exercised
in the context of ensuring the expeditious conduct of arbitral
proceedings, particularly where the Court finds that the proceedings
have been unduly delayed while under the seisin of the existing
arbitrator. The relevant portion of the said judgment reads as under:
"5........To my understanding, Section 29A(6) has to be read in
context, as one of the sub-sections in Section 29A. Section 29A is a
provision which deals with extension of the mandate of the Arbitral
Tribunal. Sub-section (6), when read in context, would indicate
that the substitution of one or more of the Arbitrators is to be
undertaken, under the said sub-section, only where the court is of
the view that the proceedings are being unduly delayed by the
Arbitrator who is presently in seisin of the proceedings. The
obvious intent is to ensure that the exercise of discretion by the
Court while extending the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal is not
frustrated by an arbitrator who is unduly delaying the proceedings
for no justifiable reason."
(emphasis added)
7. In the light of the aforesaid principle, and keeping in view the
limited progress made in the arbitral proceedings despite the passage
of considerable time, this Court is of the considered view that, in order
to ensure expeditious adjudication of the disputes between the parties,
it would be appropriate to substitute the learned Arbitrator.
8. At this stage, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties
submit that they are ad idem that the disputes between them be
2024:DHC:7312
referred for resolution by way of arbitration before a Sole Arbitrator,
and that the arbitral proceedings be conducted under the aegis of the
Delhi International Arbitration Centre4 in accordance with its rules
and regulations.
9. The Court is of the opinion that keeping in view the conspectus
of facts and the law in this regard, it would be in the interest of justice
that the learned Arbitrator is substituted by another learned Arbitrator
appointed by this Court.
10. Accordingly, this Court requests Mr. Guruswamy Nataraj,
Advocate, (Mobile No. : 9811808373), to enter into reference as a
Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties.
11. The arbitration would take place under the aegis of the DIAC
and would abide by its rules and regulations. The learned Arbitrator
shall be entitled to fees as per the Schedule of Fees maintained by the
DIAC.
12. The learned Arbitrator is also requested to file the requisite
disclosure under Section 12 (2) of the Act within a week of entering of
reference.
13. The parties shall share the learned Arbitrator's fee and arbitral
costs equally.
14. The Registry is directed to send a receipt of this order to the
learned arbitrator through all permissible modes, including through e-
mail.
15. All rights and contentions of the parties in relation to the
claims/counter-claims are kept open, to be decided by the learned
DIAC
Arbitrator on their merits, in accordance with law.
16. Needless to say, nothing in this order shall be construed as an
expression of opinion of this Court on the merits of the controversy
between the parties.
17. Accordingly, the present Petition, along with pending
Application(s), if any, stands disposed of.
HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J.
MARCH 17, 2026/jyh/kr/sg
