Facts
The Petitioner and Respondent entered into a Sub-lease Agreement dated 15.09.2018.
Source reference: p.1-2Following disputes, the Petitioner invoked the arbitration clause on 17.02.2022, leading to the appointment of a Sole Arbitrator on 25.09.2023.
Source reference: p.2Arbitral proceedings commenced in October 2023 and pleadings were completed by 08.02.2024.
Source reference: p.2The mandate was previously extended by the Arbitrator and subsequently by the High Court until 27.02.2026.
Source reference: p.2The Petitioner approached the Court seeking a second extension of six months, citing delays due to the Respondent's requests for adjournments and the ill health of a 75-year-old witness whose cross-examination remained incomplete.
Source reference: p.2Issues
Whether sufficient cause exists under Section 29A(4) and (5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to grant a further extension of the Arbitrator’s mandate.
Source reference: p.2-3Law Applied
The Court applied Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which mandates that an award must be made within twelve months of the completion of pleadings, unless extended by the consent of parties (for six months) or by the Court upon an application showing "sufficient cause".
Source reference: p.3-4The Court further referenced the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the scope and mandate of Section 29A in Rohan Builders (India) Private Limited v. Berger Paints India Limited.
Source reference: p.4Additionally, the court noted Section 7 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, regarding jurisdiction.
Source reference: p.1Reasoning
The Court examined the procedural history and the reasons for the delay, noting that the proceedings were at an advanced stage but could not be concluded due to circumstances beyond the Petitioner’s control, specifically the incomplete cross-examination of an elderly witness and pending final arguments.
Source reference: p.2The Court observed that the Respondent, appearing through a partner, explicitly stated they had no objection to the extension.
Source reference: p.2-3Applying the statutory requirement of "sufficient cause" under Section 29A(5), the Court determined that the need to complete evidence and hear final arguments justified the extension to prevent the termination of the mandate and ensure the resolution of the dispute.
Source reference: p.4Holding
The Court answered the issue in the affirmative, finding sufficient cause for the extension.
It allowed the petition and extended the mandate of the learned Sole Arbitrator for a further period of six months beyond 27.02.2026.
Source reference: p.4The Court ordered the disposal of the petition and all pending applications accordingly.
Source reference: p.4Original Court PDF
AVG Logistics Limited v. MS Shree Shyam Palace [O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 186/2026]
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in