$~41 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 552/2026 INSTAKART SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Suparba Chattaraj, Adv. versus HINDON RIVER MILLS LIMITED .....Respondent Through: Mr. Zafar Khurshid, Mr. Amit Singh Chauhan and Mr. Udit Chauhan, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA ORDER(ORAL) % 27.07.2026 1. The instant petition has been filed under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 19961 seeking extension of the mandate of the learned Arbitral Tribunal. 2. The Petitioner and the Respondent had entered into a Letter of Intent dated 27.10.2021 in relation to the proposed lease of warehouse premises at Dasna Ghaziabad. 3. Disputes having arisen between the parties, and arbitration clause given under Clause 38 of the Letter of Intent was invoked. 4. This Court, vide order dated 29.02.2024, appointed Ms. 1 “the Act”, hereinafter O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 552/2026 Page 1 of 3 Signature Not Verified Signed By:PREETI Signing Date:28.07.2026 16:51:58 Beenashaw Soni, Advocate as the Sole Arbitrator. 5. It is borne out from the record that the mandate of learned Sole Arbitrator was once already extended by the consent of the parties under Section 29A (3) of the Act till 22.07.2026.

6. Ms. Suparba Chattaraj, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the proceedings could not be concluded within the extended period, however, delay is neither deliberate nor attributable to the learned Sole Arbitrator or the parties. 7. She submits that the pleadings stand concluded, issues have been framed and the arbitral proceedings are presently at the stage of recording of evidence and therefore, one-year extension is required for completion of arbitral proceedings and pronouncement of arbitral award. 8. Issue notice. 9. Notice is accepted on behalf of the Respondent by Mr. Zafar Khurshid. 10. Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent, on instructions, submits that he has no objection to the extension of the mandate of the learned Arbitral Tribunal. O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 552/2026 Page 2 of 3 Signature Not Verified Signed By:PREETI Signing Date:28.07.2026 16:51:58 11. It is well-settled that the mandate of an Arbitral Tribunal can be extended even after the expiry of the period under Section 29A of the Act. However, such extension is not to be granted as a matter of course and this Court must be satisfied that sufficient cause exists for extending the mandate. 12. In the considered opinion of this Court, sufficient cause is made out in the facts of the present case.

13. Accordingly, the mandate of the learned Sole Arbitrator is extended by a further period of one year with effect from 22.07.2026 as a last opportunity. The period commencing from 22.07.2026 till the date of this order shall also stand regularized. 14. The present petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J JULY 27, 2026/gunn O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 552/2026 Page 3 of 3 Signature Not Verified Signed By:PREETI Signing Date:28.07.2026 16:51:58

$~41 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 552/2026 INSTAKART SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Suparba Chattaraj, Adv. versus HINDON RIVER MILLS LIMITED .....Respondent Through: Mr. Zafar Khurshid, Mr. Amit Singh Chauhan and Mr. Udit Chauhan, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA ORDER(ORAL) % 27.07.2026 1. The instant petition has been filed under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 19961 seeking extension of the mandate of the learned Arbitral Tribunal. 2. The Petitioner and the Respondent had entered into a Letter of Intent dated 27.10.2021 in relation to the proposed lease of warehouse premises at Dasna Ghaziabad. 3. Disputes having arisen between the parties, and arbitration clause given under Clause 38 of the Letter of Intent was invoked. 4. This Court, vide order dated 29.02.2024, appointed Ms. 1 “the Act”, hereinafter O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 552/2026 Page 1 of 3 Signature Not Verified Signed By:PREETI Signing Date:28.07.2026 16:51:58 Beenashaw Soni, Advocate as the Sole Arbitrator. 5. It is borne out from the record that the mandate of learned Sole Arbitrator was once already extended by the consent of the parties under Section 29A (3) of the Act till 22.07.2026.

6. Ms. Suparba Chattaraj, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the proceedings could not be concluded within the extended period, however, delay is neither deliberate nor attributable to the learned Sole Arbitrator or the parties. 7. She submits that the pleadings stand concluded, issues have been framed and the arbitral proceedings are presently at the stage of recording of evidence and therefore, one-year extension is required for completion of arbitral proceedings and pronouncement of arbitral award. 8. Issue notice. 9. Notice is accepted on behalf of the Respondent by Mr. Zafar Khurshid. 10. Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent, on instructions, submits that he has no objection to the extension of the mandate of the learned Arbitral Tribunal. O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 552/2026 Page 2 of 3 Signature Not Verified Signed By:PREETI Signing Date:28.07.2026 16:51:58 11. It is well-settled that the mandate of an Arbitral Tribunal can be extended even after the expiry of the period under Section 29A of the Act. However, such extension is not to be granted as a matter of course and this Court must be satisfied that sufficient cause exists for extending the mandate. 12. In the considered opinion of this Court, sufficient cause is made out in the facts of the present case.

13. Accordingly, the mandate of the learned Sole Arbitrator is extended by a further period of one year with effect from 22.07.2026 as a last opportunity. The period commencing from 22.07.2026 till the date of this order shall also stand regularized. 14. The present petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J JULY 27, 2026/gunn O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 552/2026 Page 3 of 3 Signature Not Verified Signed By:PREETI Signing Date:28.07.2026 16:51:58