Court Extends Arbitral Mandate Under Section 29A(5) Following Party Consent and Significant Procedural Delays

The Petitioner and Respondent entered into a Concession Agreement on 21.01.2011

Following disputes, a three-member Arbitral Tribunal was constituted. The proceedings suffered delays due to challenges to interim orders, appellate proceedings, and Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) proceedings initiated against one party

After the statutory period expired, the parties mutually extended the mandate by six months under Section 29A(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; however, this period also expired while the proceedings were still at the stage of pleadings

The Petitioner sought a further judicial extension of the mandate through the present petition

1. Whether there exists "sufficient cause" to grant an extension of the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal under Section 29A(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

2. Whether the period between the expiry of the previous mandate and the date of the court order can be regularized

The court applied Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which mandates that an award must be made within twelve months from the completion of pleadings, allowing for a six-month extension by mutual consent, after which only the Court may extend the mandate for "sufficient cause"

The Court further relied on the precedent set by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rohan Builders (India) Private Limited v. Berger Paints India Limited (2024 SCC OnLine SC 2494), which clarified the scope, ambit, and timeline requirements for extending an arbitrator's mandate under Section 29A

The Court observed that despite the previous six-month mutual extension, the arbitral proceedings had not progressed beyond the pleadings stage due to complex intervening developments, including litigation in appellate forums and insolvency proceedings

The Court reasoned that since both parties were ad idem (in agreement) regarding the necessity of the extension and no objection was raised by the Respondent, granting the relief was necessary for the interest of justice to ensure continuity and consistency in the adjudication of the dispute

Applying the "sufficient cause" standard under Section 29A(5), the Court determined that the procedural history justified a further twelve-month extension

Additionally, the Court regularized the "gap" period from 07.08.2023 until the date of the order (29.05.2026) to ensure the validity of the tribunal's mandate

The petition and all pending applications were disposed of accordingly