SIRION LABS PRIVATE LIMITED vs VEDANTA LIMITED ( CAIRN OIL AND GAS DIVISION) — ARB/143/2026

Disposed: --ALLOWED on 15th May 2026.

Case disposed Next hearing 24-Mar-2026

CNR: PHHC010488162026

e-Filing Number

19-03-2026

Filing Number

ARB/17045/2026

Filing Date

20-Mar-2026

Registration No

ARB/143/2026

Registration Date

20-Mar-2026

Judge

Mr. Justice Jasgurpreet Singh Puri

Coram

Mr. Justice Jasgurpreet Singh Puri

Bench Type

Single

Category

69.4 - ARBITRATION U/S 11 (LESS THAN 5 CRORE) ( 938 )

Sub-Category

( 944 )

Judicial Branch

CIVIL REVISION BRANCH-I

Decision Date

15-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

--ALLOWED

Last updated 01-Jun-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SIRION LABS PRIVATE LIMITED

    Adv. EKAKSHRA MAHAJAN

  2. 2.SIRION LABS PVT LTD

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.VEDANTA LIMITED ( CAIRN OIL AND GAS DIVISION)

  2. 2.SIRION LABS PVT LTD

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 15-May-2026

    Mr. Justice Jasgurpreet Singh PuriView PDF

    The High Court of Punjab and Haryana granted Sirion Labs' petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, appointing Justice Dr. Vineet Kothari (former Acting Chief Justice of Gujarat High Court) as Sole Arbitrator. The original three-member tribunal mechanism failed because the respondent initially did not nominate an arbitrator, and subsequently both appointed arbitrators could not select a presiding arbitrator due to fee structure concerns relative to the claim amount. Both parties consented to the appointment of a Sole Arbitrator with fees governed by the Fourth Schedule of the Act. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 20-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. ARB/143/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana granted Sirion Labs' petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, appointing Justice Dr. Vineet Kothari (former Acting Chief Justice of Gujarat High Court) as Sole Arbitrator. The original three-member tribunal mechanism failed because the respondent initially did not nominate an arbitrator, and subsequently both appointed arbitrators could not select a presiding arbitrator due to fee structure concerns relative to the claim amount. Both parties consented to the appointment of a Sole Arbitrator with fees governed by the Fourth Schedule of the Act. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case