Facts
The Petitioner and Respondents entered into a Term Sheet Agreement (02.02.2011) and subsequent definitive agreements.
Source reference: para. 2Following disputes, a three-member Arbitral Tribunal was constituted on 27.10.2023.
Source reference: para. 3Pleadings concluded on 08.09.2024, and the mandate was initially extended by mutual consent until 27.10.2025.
Source reference: para. 4Subsequently, the High Court extended the mandate until 30.06.2026 via O.M.P. (Misc.) (Comm.) No. 889/2025.
Source reference: para. 6As the proceedings remain at the stage of cross-examination of witnesses, the Petitioner approached the Court seeking a further extension until 30.06.2027.
Source reference: paras. 4, 7Issues
1. Whether the Court should exercise its power to extend the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Source reference: para. 1Law Applied
The Court applied Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which stipulates the time limits for arbitral awards and empowers the court to extend the mandate upon the expiry of the statutory or consensually extended period.
Source reference: para. 11Specifically, Section 29A(4) allows for such extension for "sufficient cause," and Section 29A(5) outlines the application process.
Source reference: para. 11The Court also referred to the precedent of Rohan Builders (India) Private Limited v. Berger Paints India Limited, which clarified the scope and ambit of Section 29A regarding the timeline for making an award.
Source reference: para. 12Reasoning
The Court observed that the arbitral proceedings had progressed to the stage of cross-examination but could not be completed within the previously extended deadline of 30.06.2026.
Source reference: paras. 6-7To ensure "continuity and consistency" in the adjudication of the dispute, the Court found it necessary to grant an extension.
Source reference: para. 10The Court placed significant weight on the fact that both the Petitioner and the Respondents were ad idem (in agreement) regarding the need for further time, as the Respondents expressed no objection to the relief sought.
Source reference: paras. 8, 10Finding "sufficient cause" and no legal impediment, the Court determined that allowing the petition would serve the interests of justice.
Source reference: paras. 10, 13Holding
The Court answered the issue in the affirmative and allowed the petition.
The mandate of the learned Arbitral Tribunal was extended for an additional period of twelve months, setting the new deadline for the award as 30.06.2027 (noted as 31.06.2027 in the order). All pending applications were disposed of accordingly.
Source reference: para. 14, 15Original Court PDF
Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd.vsBinod Kumar Bawri & Ors.
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in