HLL LIFECARE LIMITED (HLL)  Vs EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION (ESIC)

O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 207/2020 Page 1 of 3
$~16 (original side)
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 207/2020 & I.A. 1147/2021
HLL LIFECARE LIMITED (HLL) ….. Petitioner
Through Mr. Ratan K. Singh and Mr.
Nikhilesh Krishnan, Advs.

versus

EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION (ESIC)
….. Respondent
Through: Mr. S.Wasim A. Qadri, Sr. Adv.
with Mr. Tamim Qadri, Mr. Saeed Qadri,
Advs. and Mr. Baye Lal, AE, ESIC
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR

% 22.01.2021 O R D E R (ORAL)
(Video-Conferencing)

1. This is a petition under sub-Section (4) & (5) of Section 29 of
the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as “the 1996 Ac t”), for extension of the mandate of learned arbitrator,
who is arbitrating on the disp utes between the petitioner and the
respondent.
2. A counter affidavit has been filed, in response to the petition, in
which serious objections have been raised, against the very execution of the agreement, whereunder the arbitration proceedings are continuing. It is alleged, inter alia, that the agreement was obtained
by fraud and that the matter is subject matter of an investigation by the
CBI as well as by the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO). It is
2021:DHC:257 O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 207/2020 Page 2 of 3
also urged that the learned arbitrator is de jure incompetent to proceed
with the matter, in view of Section 12(5) of the 1996 Act, read with
VII Schedule thereto.

3. These objections, in my view, ought to be taken up by the
respondent by way of separate proceedings , which, as and when filed,
would be naturally considered on its own merits. As of today, there is
no application by either party, for termination of the mandate of the learned arbitrator either on the ground that the agreement between the parties was executed by fraud, or that the learned ar bitrator is de jure
incapable to continue to act as such.

4. I am also informed that the petitioner has filed voluminous
documents before the learned arbitrator, and that hearings before the learned arbitrator are continuing by virtual mode, which naturally
handicap access and reference to the said documents.

5. Mr. S. Wasim A. Qadri, learned Senior counsel for the
respondent, submits, without prejudice to the rights of the respondent to separately approach this Court for termination of the mandate of the
learn ed arbitrator, that extension of time, if granted, may not be
restricted to six months.

6. In view thereof, the mandate of the learned arbitrator stands
extended by a period of one year reckoned from today, i.e. 22
nd

January , 2021.
2021:DHC:257 O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 207/2020 Page 3 of 3
7. This order shall not be treated as an expression of opinion
regarding the contentions advanced by the respondent in its counter
affidavit, filed in response to the present petition. The respondent
would be at liberty to move this Court by way of appropriate
proceedings, for ter mination of the mandate of the learned arbitrator
on the grounds urged in the counter affidavit. Any such application, as
and when filed, shall be decided on its own merits.

8. The extension of time, as granted by this order, is strictly,
therefore, being granted without prejudice to the submissions contained in the counter affidavit filed by the respondent and without
any expression of opinion on the merits thereof .
9. The petition as well as I.A. 1147/2021 stands disposed of in the
aforesaid terms.

C. HARI SHANKAR, J .
JANUARY 22, 2021
dsn

2021:DHC:257