M/S MATRIX v. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD
Delhi High Court declines to terminate arbitral tribunal's mandate, grants one final 90 days to conclude proceedings
The court refused to terminate the Arbitral Tribunal's mandate under Section 14(1)(a) and gave it one final opportunity to conclude proceedings within 90 days. Any continuation beyond the extended mandate (till 05.08.2026) needs a Section 29A extension, which the petitioner may seek. Petition disposed of.
Why it matters: Delay in arbitration, partly caused by witness unavailability, was not attributed solely to the Tribunal where proceedings were at an advanced stage, so substitution was not warranted.
Summary written with AI and checked against the judgment text. It is not part of the judgment; read the full text or PDF.- Court
- Delhi High Court
- Case number
- O.M.P. (T) (COMM.) - 108/2026
- Date of judgment
- 30 October 2026
- Petitioner / Appellant
- M/S MATRIX
- Respondent
- NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD
- CNR
- DLHC010477672026
- Outcome
- Disposed
O.M.P. (T) (COMM.) 108/2026 Page 1 of 3
$~63
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010477672026 + O.M.P. (T) (COMM.) 108/2026 M/S MATRIX .....Petitioner Through: Mr. A.K. De, Advocate.
versus
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD .....Respondent Through: Mr. Pankaj Seth and Ms. Shruti Jain, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA
ORDER (ORAL)
% 30.10.2026
1. The present petition has been filed under Section 14(1)(a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 1 seeking termination of the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal on the ground that the Tribunal has failed to act without undue delay.
2. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that despite the constitution of the Arbitral Tribunal in the year 2023 and the mandate having been extended on two occasions by this Court, the arbitral proceedings have not been concluded.
3. It is further submitted that repeated adjournments and non - availability of witnesses have resulted in considerable delay and has caused substantial and considerable prejudice to the Petitioner.
1 “Act” hereinafter
O.M.P. (T) (COMM.) 108/2026 Page 2 of 3
4. This court is of the view that although the Arbitral proceedings has suffered considerable delay, substantial progress has already been made.
5. The remaining proceedings are at an advanced stage. It is also apparent that som e of the adjournemnts were occasioned by non - availability of witnesses.
6. In these circumstances, the entire delay, at this stage, cannot be attributed exclusively to the Arbitral Tribunal so as to warrant its immediate substitution.
7. In the interest of j ustice, the existing Arbitral Tribunal is afforded one final opportunity to conclude the proceedings within a period of 90 days from today rather than terminating its mandate at this stage.
8. However, since the mandate of the learned Arbitral Tribunal was extended only till 05.08.2026, any further continuation would require an appropriate extension under Section 29A of the Act. The Petitioner shall be at liberty to seek such extension in accordance with law.
9. It is also strictly clarified that no parties shall take unnecessary adjournments before the Arbitral Tribunal.
10. The learned Arbital tribunal is also requested to complete the
O.M.P. (T) (COMM.) 108/2026 Page 3 of 3
pending arbitral proceedings expeditiously.
11. The petition stands disposed of in the above terms.
OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J
OCTOBER 30, 2026/pa