# In the matter of Buoyant Technology Constellation Pvt. Ltd. vs. Manyata Infrastructure Developments Pvt. Ltd.

> HC judgment dated 2024-04-05. Citation: TCN-2024-HC-00107. The case involves a writ petition filed in the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, challenging an…

- **Court:** HC
- **Order date:** 5 Apr 2024
- **Citation:** TCN-2024-HC-00107
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/high-courts-new-delhi/buoyant-technology-constellation-pvt-ltd-vs-manyata-infrastructure-developments-01b19ed1

## Summary

### Background

The case involves a writ petition filed in the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, challenging an order of the Arbitral Tribunal. The petitioner, Buoyant Technology Constellations Pvt. Ltd., is questioning the Arbitral Tribunal's order dated 16.03.2024, which posted the proceedings to 21.03.2024 and directed the claimants to keep the witness present. The petitioner also seeks a declaration that the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal has terminated on 25.02.2024. The dispute arises from differences and disputes among the parties related to joint development agreements, leading to the invocation of the Arbitration Clause. The Arbitral Tribunal held its first proceedings on 07.11.2022. The petitioner had previously filed a writ petition (W.P.No.10091/2023) questioning the

…

## Facts

Buoyant Technology Constellations Pvt. Ltd. (petitioner) and Manyata Infrastructure Developments Pvt. Ltd. (respondent) entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) and joint development agreements. Disputes arose, leading to arbitration proceedings. The Arbitral Tribunal initiated proceedings on 07.11.2022. The respondent filed a claim statement on 05.12.2022. The petitioner filed objections and a counterclaim on 27.01.2023. The respondent filed objections to the counterclaim and a rejoinder on 25.02.2023. The petitioner sought to file a surrejoinder, but the Tribunal rejected the request for an extension of time. The petitioner then filed W.P.No.10091/2023, which was disposed of on 11.05.2023, granting the petitioner liberty to file a surrejoinder on 20.05.2023.

…

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether the Arbitral Tribunal is justified in observing in its order dated 21.03.2024 that arbitral …

**Ratio:** Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, stipulates a time limit of

…

**Reasoning:** The court reasoned that the pleadings were completed when the petitioner filed the

…

**Interpretation:** The court interpreted Section 23 and 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation

…

**Application:** The court applied the ratio and reasoning to the facts of the case, noting that

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** S.G.PA…; C.M. POO…
- **Appellants:** Buoyant Technology…
- **Respondents:** MANYATA INFRASTRUC…
- **Advocates:** S. Basa…; Anish Ac…; +3 more

## Timeline

- **2022-11-07 — First Arbitral Tribunal…**: The Arbitral Tribunal held its first…
- **2022-11-17 — Hearing Before the…**: The petitioner and respondent were heard, modalities of the proceedings were fixed, and…

## Legal provisions

- [Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 95 — Application by creditor to initiate insolvency…](https://caseease.in/legal-provisions/insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-2016/section-95)

---

This is a preview. The full structured summary, issues, precedents and source judgment are available on CaseEase - Legal Intelligence Simplified: https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/high-courts-new-delhi/buoyant-technology-constellation-pvt-ltd-vs-manyata-infrastructure-developments-01b19ed1