Court Extends Mandate of Arbitral Tribunal for Pronouncement of Award Under Section 29A of the Act.

The Petitioner and Respondent entered into an Agreement on 16.01.2004.

Disputes arose, leading to the constitution of a three-member Arbitral Tribunal.

Pleadings were completed in July 2022, and the mandate was initially extended by mutual consent until 03.02.2023.

Subsequent extensions were granted by the High Court via O.M.P. (Misc.) (Comm.) Nos. 225/2023 and 605/2024, extending the mandate to 12.09.2025.

Although proceedings concluded and the matter was reserved for the Award, the mandate expired before the Award could be pronounced.

The Petitioner sought a further extension until 11.09.2026, to which the Respondent consented.

1. Whether the court should exercise its power to extend the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal after the expiry of the statutorily prescribed period under Section 29A of the Act.

The court applied Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which mandates that an award must be made within twelve months of completed pleadings [s. 29A(1)], allows a six-month extension by party consent [s. 29A(3)], and empowers the Court to extend the mandate for "sufficient cause" upon application by a party [s. 29A(4)-(5)].

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, which clarified the scope, ambit, and mandatory nature of timelines under Section 29A.

The Court observed that the arbitral proceedings had already reached the final stage of award pronouncement.

To ensure "continuity and consistency" in the adjudication process and in the "interest of justice," the Court found it appropriate to grant the extension.

The Court placed significant weight on the fact that both parties were ad idem (in agreement) regarding the need for an extension.

By applying the "sufficient cause" standard under Section 29A(5), the Court determined that since the matter was already reserved for judgment, allowing the mandate to terminate would be counter-productive to the efficiency of the arbitration.

The Petition was allowed, and the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal was extended for a further period until 11.09.2026. All pending applications were disposed of accordingly.