$~70 & 71 
* IN  THE  HIGH  COURT  OF  DELHI  AT  NEW  DELHI 
# CNR No. DLHC010465812026 
+  O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 763/2026, I.A. 26904/2026 & I.A. 26905/2026 
 
 RELIGARE FINVEST LIMITED   .....Petitioner 
Through: Mr. Siddharth Sharma, Ms. Ishika Chauhan and Mr. Shobhit Sharma, Advocates.  
    versus 
 
EDISONS INFRAPOWER AND MULTIVENTURES PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR.       .....Respondents 
Through: Mr. Aman Raj Gandhi, Mr. Ojasvi Sharma and Mr. Dhairyah C. Shroff, Advocates.  
71 
# CNR No. DLHC010465822026 
+  O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 764/2026, I.A. 26906/2026 & I.A. 26907/2026 
 
 RELIGARE FINVEST LIMITED   .....Petitioner 
Through: Mr. Siddharth Sharma, Ms. Ishika Chauhan and Mr. Shobhit Sharma, Advocates.  
    versus 
 
 WIDESCREEN HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS. 
.....Respondents 
Through: Mr. Aman Raj Gandhi, Mr. Ojasvi Sharma and Mr. Dhairyah C. Shroff, Advocates.  
 
 CORAM: 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA 
    ORDER(ORAL) 
%        28.09.2026 
1. These petitions have been filed under Section 29A(4) and (5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 19961 seeking further extension of the mandate of the learned Sole Arbitrator, Mr. Justice (Retd.) S.J. Mukhopadhaya, Former Judge, Supreme Court of India, for completion of the arbitral proceedings arising out of the respective Loan Agreements dated 15.03.2014. 


1 “Act” hereinafter 
 
2. Previously, Hon’ble Ms. Justice (Retd.) Rekha Sharma, Former Judge, Delhi High Court, was appointed as learned Arbitrator, who entered reference on 14.05.2019. Upon her withdrawal from office, this Court vide order dated 07.10.2024 appointed Mr. Justice (Retd.) S.J. Mukhopadhaya, Former Judge, Supreme Court of India, as a Sole Arbitrator.  


 
3. After the appointment of the learned Sole Arbitrator, issues arose regarding the stamping of the Loan Agreements, which resulted in Common Interim Award dated 28.02.2026. The said interim award has been challenged by the respective parties under Section 34 of the Act and petitions stood reserved on 03.08.2026. 


 
4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the proceedings are at an advanced stage, arguments have been completed and that the delay is not attributable to either party.  


 
5. Learned Counsel for the Respondents submit that he has no objection to the extension of the mandate. 


 
6. This Court is empowered under Section 29A of the Act to extend the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal upon sufficient cause being shown. 


 
7. In view of the submissions made and reasons stated in the petitions, this Court is satisfied that sufficient cause has been shown for extension of the mandate. 


 
8. Accordingly, the mandate of the learned Sole Arbitrator is extended till 02.09.2027. The period till today shall also stand regularized in both the petitions. 


 
9. The petitions are disposed of in the above terms. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.  


 
 
OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J 
SEPTEMBER 28, 2026/pa