Data Technosys(Engineers) Pvt. Ltd. vs Rail Vikas Nigam Limited

* 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:

Act O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 221/2026 Page 1 of 5 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 O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 221/2026 Page 2 of 5 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 O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 221/2026 Page 3 of 5 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 O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 221/2026 Page 4 of 5 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 O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 221/2026 Page 5 of 5