Facts
The parties entered into a Settlement Agreement on 18.02.2022 containing an arbitration clause
Source reference: p.2, para. 2Following disputes, the Petitioner invoked arbitration on 21.11.2022, and the Court appointed a Sole Arbitrator on 08.01.2024 under Section 11(6) of the Act
Source reference: p.2, paras. 3-4Pleadings were completed on 28.09.2024, and the proceedings reached an advanced stage with evidence being led by both sides
Source reference: p.2, para. 5By mutual consent under Section 29A(3), the mandate was previously extended until 15.04.2026
Source reference: p.2, para. 5Upon the expiry of this period without an award being rendered, the Petitioner moved the Court under Section 29A(4) and (5) seeking a further twelve-month extension
Source reference: p.2, para. 6The Respondents expressed no objection to the request
Source reference: p.2, para. 7Issues
1. Whether sufficient cause exists under Section 29A(5) of the Act to grant a further extension of the mandate of the Sole Arbitrator after the expiry of the statutorily prescribed and mutually extended periods
Source reference: p.2, para. 6; p.3, para. 92. Whether the Court should regularize the period between the expiry of the mandate and the date of the extension order
Source reference: p.5, para. 15Law Applied
The Court applied Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which governs the time limits for arbitral awards
Source reference: p.3, para. 9Section 29A(4) stipulates that the mandate of an arbitrator terminates upon expiry of the prescribed period unless extended by the Court, while Section 29A(5) allows such extension for "sufficient cause" and on such terms as the Court deems fit
Source reference: p.3, para. 9The Court also referenced the Supreme Court’s interpretation of this provision in Rohan Builders (India) Private Limited v. Berger Paints India Limited [2024 SCC OnLine SC 2494], which clarifies the scope and ambit of the Court's power to extend mandates
Source reference: p.4, para. 10Reasoning
The Court noted that Section 29A does not permit the "routine grant" of extensions; rather, it requires a "careful assessment of the progress of the proceedings" based on the specific facts of the case
Source reference: p.4, para. 12In this instance, the Court found that substantial progress had been made, including the conclusion of pleadings and the recording of evidence
Source reference: p.4, para. 13The matter is currently at an advanced stage, specifically the leading of evidence regarding counter-claims
Source reference: p.4, para. 13Given that the parties were ad idem (in agreement) regarding the necessity of the extension and the arbitral process was nearing completion, the Court determined that sufficient cause was established to prevent the termination of the mandate and to ensure the resolution of the dispute
Source reference: p.4, para. 13Holding
The Court allowed the petition, holding that an extension was justified by the advanced stage of the proceedings and the mutual consent of the parties
The mandate of the learned Sole Arbitrator was extended by a period of twelve months, effective until 15.04.2027
Source reference: p.5, para. 14Additionally, the Court regularized the period from the expiry of the mandate (15.04.2026) until the date of the order (20.04.2026)
Source reference: p.5, para. 15The petition was disposed of accordingly
Source reference: p.5, para. 16Original Court PDF
Rajesh Guralmal NagpalvsRga Fresh Fruit Pvt Ltd & Anr.
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in