Iffco Kisan Suvidha Private Limited vs Dept Of Agriculture And Farmers Welfare
- Court
- Delhi High Court
$~J
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%
Judgment pronounced on: 16.10.2026
# CNR No.DLHC010329812026
O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 555/2026
+
IFFCO KISAN SUVIDHA PRIVATE LIMITED .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. A.R. Takkar, Sr. Adv. along with
Mr. Manan Takkar and Ms. Avantika
Thakur, Advs.
versus
DEPT OF AGRICULTURE AND FARMERS WELFARE
.....Respondent
Through: Ms. Saumya Tandon, CGSC, Mr.
Govil Upadhyay, GP along with Mr.
Gaurav Singh Sengar, Adv. and Mrs.
Swati Singh, AAO.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA
JUDGMENT
1. The present petition, as amended, has been filed under Section 11(6)
read with Sections 15, 29A(5) and 29A(6) of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereafter “the A&C Act”), seeking extension of the
time period for making of the arbitral award in the arbitral proceedings
bearing Case Ref. No. IIAC-ARB 113/2024 (hereafter “the arbitral
proceedings”), conducted under the aegis of the India International
Arbitration Centre (hereafter “IIAC”); substitution of the learned Sole
Arbitrator, Late Hon’ble Mr. Justice (Retd.) Vijender Jain, who passed away
on 27.02.2026 during the pendency of the arbitral proceedings; and a
direction that the substitute Sole Arbitrator shall proceed from the stage at
O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 555/2026 Page 1 of 11
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:16.10.2026
20:26:13
which the arbitral proceedings stood on the date of termination of the
mandate of the previous Arbitrator.
2. The petition was originally filed under Sections 29A(5) and 29A(6) of
the A&C Act. Vide order dated 05.08.2026, the petition was permitted to be
read as having been filed under Section 11(6) of the A&C Act read with
Sections 15 and 29A thereof, and an amended petition has been filed
accordingly. A short reply has been filed on behalf of the respondent on
01.09.2026.
3. The disputes between the parties arise out of the KCC Agreement
dated 31.10.2018 (hereafter “the Agreement”), executed pursuant to the
Request for Proposal bearing Ref. No. RFP/KCC/DAC&FW/FEBRUARY,
2018 (hereafter “the RFP”) floated by the respondent for providing Kisan
Call Centre services. The Agreement was initially valid up to 31.08.2021
and was extended from time to time till 31.08.2023. Alleging that the
respondent failed to clear the amounts due under its invoices and to release
the Performance Bank Guarantee, the petitioner invoked arbitration vide
letter dated 02.04.2024, raising a claim of Rs.7,14,09,167/- (inclusive of the
Performance Bank Guarantee of Rs.77,24,920/-). The respondent disputes
the claims and has raised a counter-claim.
4. The arbitration agreement between the parties is contained in Clause
3.21 of the RFP, which reads as under:-
“3.21. Arbitration Policy:
In case of any dispute between the Client and the Agency arising out
of or in relation to the Agreement, the dispute shall be referred to
arbitration of a sole arbitrator to be appointed by the Secretary,
Department of Agriculture, Cooperation & Farmers Welfare, Ministry
of Agriculture & Farmers Welfare, Government of India. The
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 shall be applicable to
arbitration under this clause. The award of the arbitrator shall be
O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 555/2026 Page 2 of 11
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:16.10.2026
20:26:13
binding on the parties to the dispute provided; however, any party
aggrieved by such award may make a further reference for setting
aside or revision of the award to the Law Secretary or any other
officer when so authorized by the Law Secretary, whose decision shall
bind the parties finally and conclusively. The place of arbitration shall
be New Delhi.”
5. It is stated that, with the mutual consent of the parties, the disputes
were referred to arbitration under the aegis of the IIAC and Hon’ble Mr.
Justice (Retd.) Vijender Jain was appointed as the Sole Arbitrator;
Procedural Order No.1 dated 11.10.2024 records that learned counsel for
both parties had no objection to the learned Sole Arbitrator continuing with
the reference. The pleadings were completed and points for determination
were framed on 22.03.2025. The evidence of the petitioner’s witness (CW-
1) concluded on 06.05.2025. The cross-examination of the respondent’s
witness (RW-1) commenced on 13.10.2025, but was deferred at the instance
of the respondent, which sought to amend its Statement of Defence; the said
application was allowed on 06.12.2025. The last order passed by the learned
Sole Arbitrator, being Procedural Order No.10 dated 02.02.2026, reads as
under:-
“1. RW-1 Mr. Sajith Kumar Kunhalath was cross-examined during
the whole session. His cross-examination remains inconclusive.
2. Ld. Counsel for the Claimant prays that one more session be
granted and she will finish the cross-examination of RW-1.
3. On a query from the Tribunal about the mandate of the Tribunal,
Ld. Counsels for both the parties states that the mandate of the
tribunal will expire on 22.03.2026.
4. Both the parties pray that the Tribunal may fix a date so that
Evidence is concluded and the matter thereafter be taken up for final
arguments.
5. Agreeing to the request of the parties, I fix 31st March, 2026 at 2.30
pm by physical hearing to record the remaining cross-examination of
RW-1.”
6. Before the next date of hearing, the learned Sole Arbitrator
O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 555/2026 Page 3 of 11
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:16.10.2026
20:26:13
unfortunately passed away on 27.02.2026. The time period for making the
award expired thereafter on 22.03.2026. On 11.05.2026, the petitioner
proposed the names of three former Judges for appointment as the substitute
Sole Arbitrator. Vide communication dated 12.05.2026, the IIAC called
upon the respondent to concur in one of the said names or to nominate
alternate name(s). Vide letter dated 25.05.2026, the respondent informed the
IIAC that the matter had been referred to the Department of Legal Affairs;
and vide letter dated 08.06.2026, the respondent stated, inter alia, as under:-
“ 3. The legal advice received by this Department is that, after
expiry of the mandate under Section 29A(4) of the Arbitration
and Conciliation Act, 1996, appointment of a substitute
Arbitrator through the institutional mechanism alone would not
be legally sustainable unless the mandate is first extended by the
competent Court under Section 29A(5) of the Act. It has further
been advised that the appropriate course would be to seek
extension of mandate and appointment of a substitute Arbitrator
through the competent Court in accordance with Sections 29A(5)
and 29A(6) of the Act.”
7. The said letter was forwarded by the IIAC to the petitioner on
18.06.2026, whereafter the present petition came to be filed on 23.07.2026.
8. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the arbitral
proceedings are at an advanced stage; that what remains is the completion of
the cross-examination of RW-1, which would require only about half an
hour, followed by final arguments; that no evidence would be required to be
adduced afresh and the proceedings would continue from the stage already
reached; and that the claim is of the order of Rs.7 crores, besides interest. As
regards the objection of delay, learned senior counsel relies upon the
judgment of the Supreme Court in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v. Nortel
Networks India (P) Ltd. , (2021) 5 SCC 738, to contend that no period of
O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 555/2026 Page 4 of 11
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:16.10.2026
20:26:13
limitation is prescribed under the A&C Act for a petition under Section 11,
and that such a petition is governed by Article 137 of the Schedule to the
Limitation Act, 1963. It is further submitted that the delay, if any, is only of
about two months, and not five months as alleged.
9. In its reply, the respondent contends that the petitioner has failed to
show sufficient cause for extension of time or for regularisation of the
intervening period; that the period between 27.02.2026 and 11.05.2026
remains unexplained, and the petition was filed only in July, 2026; that the
extension of twelve months sought is disproportionate, given the advanced
stage of the proceedings; that Clause 3.21 of the RFP contemplates
appointment of the arbitrator by the Secretary of the respondent Department;
and that its position is to be seen in the light of the Office Memorandum
dated 03.06.2024 issued by the Department of Expenditure, Ministry of
Finance, containing guidelines for arbitration in contracts of domestic public
procurement. The respondent, however, does not dispute the unfortunate and
unforeseen nature of the demise of the learned Sole Arbitrator.
10. At the hearing, learned counsel for the respondent, submits that the
unexplained delay of about five months in filing the present petition be
taken note of. However, it is acceded that the vacancy on account of demise
of the previous arbitrator is to be filled up, and a suitable extension of time
is to be granted for completion of arbitral proceedings. Learned counsel for
both parties have also agreed that the arbitral proceedings shall henceforth
be conducted under the aegis of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre
(hereafter “ DIAC ”).
11. The existence of the arbitration agreement is not in dispute. The
mandate of the learned Sole Arbitrator came to an end upon his demise,
O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 555/2026 Page 5 of 11
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:16.10.2026
20:26:13
necessitating the appointment of a substitute arbitrator; and, the time for
making the award having expired on 22.03.2026, the arbitral proceedings
can continue only if this Court extends the time in terms of Section 29A(4)
of the A&C Act.
12. In Rohan Builders (India) (P) Ltd. v. Berger Paints India Ltd. , 2024
SCC OnLine SC 2494, it has been held by the Supreme Court as under:-
“19. … under Section 29A(5), the power of the court to extend
the time is to be exercised only in cases where there is sufficient
cause for such extension. Such extension is not granted
mechanically on filing of the application. The judicial discretion
of the court in terms of the enactment acts as a deterrent against
any party abusing the process of law or espousing a frivolous or
vexatious application. Further, the court can impose terms and
conditions while granting an extension. …
20. … Section 29A(7) states that if a new arbitrator(s) is
appointed, the reconstituted arbitral tribunal shall be deemed to
be in continuation of the previously appointed arbitral tribunal.
This obliterates the need to file a fresh application under Section
11 of the A & C Act for the appointment of an arbitrator. In the
event of substitution of arbitrator(s), the arbitral proceedings
will commence from the stage already reached. Evidence or
material already on record is deemed to be received by the
newly constituted tribunal. The aforesaid deeming provisions
underscore the legislative intent to effectuate efficiency and
expediency in the arbitral process.
xxx
23. In view of the above discussion, we hold 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. The court while adjudicating
such extension applications will be guided by the principle of
sufficient cause and our observations in paragraph 19 of the
judgment.”
13. Further, in Mohan Lal Fatehpuria v. Bharat Textiles & Ors. , 2025
O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 555/2026 Page 6 of 11
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:16.10.2026
20:26:13
INSC 1409, the Supreme Court has observed as under:-
“13. … When mandate of arbitrator has expired, his
continuation is impermissible. Section 29A(6) empowers and
obligates the Court to substitute the Arbitrator. … The
substitution of a sole arbitrator is warranted, when his mandate
ceases to exist, to effectuate the object of the Act, which
mandates expeditious resolution of the dispute. …”
14. In the present case, substitution is necessitated on account of the
demise of the learned Sole Arbitrator. Section 15(2) of the A&C Act
provides for appointment of a substitute arbitrator according to the rules
applicable to the appointment of the arbitrator being replaced. The said
provision, read with Sections 29A(5) and 29A(6), enables this Court to
appoint a substitute Sole Arbitrator while extending the period for making
the award, upon sufficient cause being shown.
15. As regards the delay, this Court in ATC Telecom Infrastructure (P)
Ltd. v. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. , 2023 SCC OnLine Del 7135, decided
on 06.11.2023, has held as under:-
“16. … The purport of Section 29A of the A&C Act was clearly
not to tie the hands of the parties or the court, and prevent
extension of time even where warranted, simply because the
petition under Section 29A(4) of the A&C Act came to be filed a
few days after expiration of the deadline contemplated under
Section 29A(1) or Section 29A(3) of the A&C Act. …”
16. The same position has been reiterated in Rohan Builders (India) (P)
Ltd. (supra).
17. It is also noticed that the arbitral proceedings came to a halt not on
account of any laxity on the part of the petitioner, but on account of the
demise of the learned Sole Arbitrator, less than four weeks before the expiry
of the time for making the award. The intervening period was consumed, in
O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 555/2026 Page 7 of 11
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:16.10.2026
20:26:13
part, in the exchange/s that took place between the parties. The delay is
neither inordinate nor indicative of any want of bona fides, and no prejudice
has been shown to have been caused to the respondent. On the other hand,
declining the reliefs sought would render nugatory the proceedings
conducted over more than fifteen months.
18. In view of the respondent’s stand at the hearing, no separate
adjudication of its earlier objections founded on Clause 3.21 of the RFP or
the Office Memorandum dated 03.06.2024 is called for. The parties have
mutually agreed to the appointment of a substitute Sole Arbitrator by this
Court and to continuation of the proceedings under the aegis of DIAC. As
regards the period of extension, having regard to the advanced stage of the
proceedings, a period of six months would suffice to complete the remaining
evidence, hear arguments and make the award.
19. The stipulation in an arbitration agreement as to the institution under
whose aegis the arbitration is to be conducted, and as to the manner in which
the arbitral tribunal is to be constituted, is a matter of contract between the
parties, which is open to variation by mutual consent. Where such consent is
arrived at in the course of hearing and is recorded in the order of the Court,
the arbitral arrangement stands modified pro tanto . In Shaf Broadcast (P)
Ltd. v. Doordarshan , (2019) 10 SCC 447, the Supreme Court, at the request
of counsel for all the parties, appointed a Sole Arbitrator in modification of
an arbitration clause which stipulated a three-member tribunal. The relevant
extract/s read as under:-
“4. Even though the arbitration agreement provides for a three-
member arbitral tribunal, the Counsel for all the parties at the
time of hearing, requested for the appointment of a Sole
O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 555/2026 Page 8 of 11
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:16.10.2026
20:26:13
Arbitrator in modification of the arbitration clause stipulating a
three-member tribunal, to adjudicate the disputes.
5. Accordingly, with the consent of the Counsel for the parties,
we appoint Mr. Justice (Retd.) A. M. Sapre, Former Judge,
Supreme Court of India as the Sole Arbitrator subject to the
declarations being made under Section 12 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996 with respect to independence and
impartiality, and the ability to devote sufficient time to complete
the arbitration within the period of 12 months.The learned
Arbitrator is requested to complete the proceedings within the
time-limit specified under Section 29A.”
20. The present case likewise entails a consensual variation of the arbitral
arrangement, to the extent of the appointment of a substitute Sole Arbitrator
by this Court and the administration of the remaining proceedings by DIAC
in place of IIAC. The change in the administering institution leaves
undisturbed the agreed number of arbitrators, the place of arbitration at New
Delhi and the law governing the proceedings. Substitution is occasioned by
the demise of the previous Sole Arbitrator, and the reconstituted tribunal
shall continue the existing reference in terms of Sections 29A(6) and 29A(7)
of the A&C Act. Accordingly, effect is given to the parties’ agreement to the
aforesaid extent.
21. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed, and the
following directions are issued with the consent of the parties:-
(i) Mr. Justice (Retd.) Manmohan Singh, former Judge, Delhi
High Court, (Mob. 9717495001), is appointed as the substitute
Sole Arbitrator in place of Late Hon’ble Mr. Justice (Retd.)
Vijender Jain, to adjudicate the disputes between the parties;
(ii) The arbitration shall take place under the aegis of the DIAC and
shall abide by its rules and regulations. The learned Sole
O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 555/2026 Page 9 of 11
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:16.10.2026
20:26:13
Arbitrator shall be entitled to fees as per the Schedule of Fees
maintained by the DIAC;
(iii) In terms of Section 29A(6) of the A&C Act, the arbitral
proceedings shall continue from the stage already reached, i.e.,
the remaining cross-examination of RW-1, on the basis of the
evidence and material already on record, which the learned
substitute Sole Arbitrator shall be deemed to have received;
(iv) The time for completion of the arbitral proceedings and making
of the arbitral award is extended by a period of six months from
the date on which the learned substitute Sole Arbitrator enters
upon reference;
(v) The learned Sole Arbitrator may proceed with the arbitral
proceedings subject to furnishing to the parties the requisite
disclosures as required under Section 12 of the A&C Act; and
in the event there is any impediment to the appointment on that
count, the parties are given liberty to file an appropriate
application in this Court;
(vi) Learned counsel for the parties are at liberty to collect the
arbitral record, along with the order-sheets/record of
proceedings, from the IIAC and to file the same before the
learned substitute Sole Arbitrator; and
(vii) All rights and contentions of the parties in relation to the
claims/counter-claims are kept open, to be decided by the
learned Sole Arbitrator on their merits, in accordance with law.
22. Needless to say, nothing in this order shall be construed as an
expression of opinion of this Court on the merits of the contentions of the
O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 555/2026 Page 10 of 11
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:16.10.2026
20:26:13
parties.
23. The present petition stands disposed of in the above terms. Pending
application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
SACHIN DATTA, J
OCTOBER 16, 2026/ sd
O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 555/2026 Page 11 of 11
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:16.10.2026
20:26:13