Flavorite Technologies Private Limited v. Mr.Raman Dhoot and 2 Others

ORDER The present Application had been filed to extend the mandate of the Sole Arbitrator in the dispute between the applicants and the respondents by at least a period of 12 (twelve) months.

2.Heard Mr.K.Yugentara, learned counsel appearing for the applicants and Mr.Jaishankar Ramakrishnan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the applicant would submit that the parties to the application had taken the recourse to Arbitration proceedings for resolving their dispute. He would submit that an application was taken out by the applicant in the year 2025 for extension of the mandate, wherein an application was also taken out by the respondents for substitution of an Arbitrator. Both the applications were heard together and by a common order Page2 of 8 dated 25.09.2025, this Court passed orders substituting the Arbitrator and had extended the mandate for a further period of three months. An application was also taken out by the applicants under Section 27 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, which came to be disposed of by this Court holding that the sole Arbitrator has powers to deal with such applications and relegated the applicants to move the Arbitrator. Upon the said order, the applicant had moved the application under Section 27 and was disposed of the same on 03.12.2025.

¶4On the strength of the order made by the learned Arbitrator, Applications were taken out by the applicants for necessary relief and the respondent had challenged the order of the learned Arbitrator allowing the application under Section 27 in CRP.No.1448 of 2026. The said revision upheld the order of the learned Arbitrator and dismissed the Revision by order dated 13.03.2026 and thereafter the applications filed by the Applicants were taken out by this Court on 07.04.2026, wherein orders were passed disposing the Application in A.Nos.586 & 587 of 2026 with directions to the respondents as indicated therein and two other Applications in A.Nos.591 & 592 of 2026 were rejected.

¶5In the interregnum, the period of mandate granted by this Court on

25.09.2025 stood expired and hence, the present Application had been taken out. Hence, he seeks indulgence of this Court to extend the mandate for a further period of 12 months. Page3 of 8

¶6Countering his arguments, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents would vehemently oppose the mandate, primarily contesting the application on the ground of delay which according to him had happened only at the instance of the claimant. He would submit that the arbitration proceedings had been initiated in the year 2021 and the same had been initiated without any substantive materials and the applicants have been indulging in attempts to collect evidence by taking out applications one after the other, which clearly indicates that the delay in the arbitration proceedings had been made only at the behest of the applicants. He would submit that the delay can never be attributed with the respondents or the Arbitrator and on that ground he would oppose the present application.

¶7He would further submit that the application taken out under Section 27, which had been substantially rejected by this Court would itself show that the applicants are trying to hold the mandate alive in perpetuity to harass the respondents. He would submit that this is a third application that has been taken out by the applicants for extension of the mandate and for that reason, he would submit that the present application does not deserve to be considered by this Court. In support of his contentions, he had taken this Court to various proceedings from the date of inception of the arbitration proceedings. Hence, he prays this Court to dismiss the application as there was no sufficient cause. Page4 of 8

¶8I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on either side and perused the materials placed on record.

¶9The claim of the respondents is that the arbitration proceedings are initiated in the year 2021 and on one pretext or the other, the proceedings have been delayed at the end of the applicants. On the other hand, it is the claim of the applicants that the delay had been caused only due to the conduct of the respondents.

10.Be that as it may, when a second application for extension of mandate had been made by the applicant, an application to substitute the Arbitrator was made by the respondent and acknowledging his claim, this Court by its order dated 25.09.2025, had substituted an Arbitrator and had granted three months time for concluding the proceedings. The proceedings in the Arbitration were at the stage of issues being framed and the parties were at liberty to file their draft issues. After the substitution of the new Arbitrator, an application had been made under Section 27 before the learned Arbitrator, who had granted leave to the applicants to seek assistance of this Court, upon which a set of applications came to be filed before this Court. Holding that the Arbitrator has mis-understood the scope of Section 27 of the Act, further held the power was very much available with the sole Arbitrator under the scheme of the Act, further held that the Arbitrator could himself very well decide the issue particularly as Page5 of 8 to whether the directions sought for by the applicants can be sustained or not. Pursuant to the said order, by order dated 03.12.2025, the learned Arbitrator had held that such documents sought for by the applicants would have to be produced by the respondents and gave them liberty to approach this Court for necessary assistance.

¶11It is to be noted that the said decision of the Arbitrator was challenged in the respondents in CRP.No.1448 of 2026 which came to be dismissed by this Court by its order dated 13.03.2026. The applicants have also taken out the applications in respect of the order passed under Section 27 and this Court by order dated 07.04.2026 had allowed the applications in part. It is pertinent to note that the mandate of three months granted by this Court on 25.09.2025 had expired in the month of February 2026, when these proceedings were pending. These proceedings which arose out of an order passed within the time period in which the mandate was alive.

¶12In that regard, this Court is unable to appreciate the objections raised by the respondents for extending the mandate. Judicial proceedings are pending and it is also further to be noted that the issues have not been framed and only pleadings have been completed. In view of the further directions issued by this Court in the month of April 2026, the documents would have to be placed on record by the respondents in compliance with the said order and further Page6 of 8 proceedings by the Arbitrator such as framing issues, recording of evidence and hearing of oral arguments have to be carried out. However, this Court is not inclined to extend the mandate as prayed for by the applicants for a period of 12 months, but considering the fact that the proceedings have been initiated in the year 2021, extends the mandate for a period of nine (9) months in view of the stage at which the proceedings are in. This Court requests the learned Arbitrator to endeavour to complete the same within the aforesaid period, if any attempt is being made it to delay the proceedings, the learned Arbitrator be at liberty to impose cost on the party who fails in their attempts to delay the proceedings.

¶13For the aforesaid reasons, the Application stand allowed and the mandate shall stand extended for a period of nine (9) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However there shall be no order as to costs.

31.07.2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Pbn Page7 of 8

K.KUMARESH BABU, J. PBN A Pre-delivery Order made in

31.07.2026 Page8 of 8

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS RESERVED ON 09.07.2026 PRONOUNCED ON 31.07.2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU 1.Flavorite Technologies Pvt Ltd., (formerly known as Flavorite PPM Technologies Pvt Ltd) Having CIN U15495MP1997PTC012211, Having its registered office at Khasra No.50/1, Patwari Halka No.28, Village Tillore Khurd, Indore, Madhya Pradesh, India 452 020 2.Heat and Control (South Asia) Private Limited Having CIN U29253TN2004PTC052353, Having its registered office at Mahindra World City, 8th Avenue, 1st Cross Road, Anjur and Echankaranai Village, Chengalpattu Taluk, Kancheepuram, Tamil Nadu, India – 603 002. … Applicants Vs 1.Mr.Raman Dhoot 2.Mrs.Renu Dhoot (Deceased) Mr.Raghav Dhoot Legal representative of the late Renu Dhoot 3.Ms.Radhika Dhoot Legal representative of the late Renu Dhoot ..Respondent(s) Page1 of 8 PRAYER:- This Application had been filed to extend the mandate of the Sole Arbitrator in the dispute between the applicants and the respondents by at least a period of 12 (twelve) months from the date of receipt of certified true copy of the order of this Court with respect to the present application. For Appellant(s): Mr.K.Yugentara for M/s.Fox Mandal Associates For Respondent(s): Mr.Jaishankar Ramakrishnan ------