Facts
The Petitioner (NHAI) and Respondent entered into two contracts in 2013 for the maintenance of sections of NH-4
Source reference: p. 2, para. 2Following disputes, the Respondent moved the Court under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, resulting in the appointment of Mr. Jagmohan Lal as the Sole Arbitrator on September 20, 2017
Source reference: p. 2, paras. 3-4The Arbitrator entered reference on September 25, 2017. Over the years, multiple extensions were granted, with the last extension expiring on December 31, 2025
Source reference: p. 2, para. 5The Petitioner sought a further extension of the mandate under Section 29-A(5) of the Act
Source reference: p. 1, para. 1Issues
Whether the mandate of the learned Sole Arbitrator should be extended under Section 29-A(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
Source reference: p. 1, para. 1Whether there is sufficient cause and mutual consent to justify such an extension to ensure the completion of proceedings
Source reference: p. 2, para. 6; p. 3, para. 8Law Applied
The court applied Section 29-A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which mandates a 12-month timeline for issuing an award (extendable by 6 months by party consent) and empowers the Court to extend the mandate thereafter upon an application for sufficient cause
Source reference: p. 3, para. 9The 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 procedural mandates for extending an arbitrator’s mandate under Section 29-A
Source reference: p. 4, para. 10Reasoning
The Court noted that the initial mandate and subsequent extensions had lapsed as of December 31, 2025
Source reference: p. 2, para. 5However, the Court observed that both parties were ad idem (in agreement) regarding the necessity of the extension
Source reference: p. 3, para. 8Applying Section 29-A(5), the Court reasoned that granting the extension was in the "interest of justice" to ensure "continuity and consistency" in the adjudication of the long-standing disputes arising from the 2013 contracts
Source reference: p. 3, para. 8The Court found no legal impediment to the relief, especially given the Respondent's "no objection" statement and the guidelines established by the Supreme Court regarding the liberal interpretation of timelines to facilitate the completion of arbitral proceedings
Source reference: p. 2, para. 6; p. 4, para. 11Holding
The Court allowed the petitions and extended the mandate of the learned Sole Arbitrator until October 31, 2026
The Court regularized the period between the expiry of the previous mandate (December 31, 2025) and the date of the current order (May 29, 2026)
Source reference: p. 4, para. 12The petitions and all pending applications were disposed of accordingly
Source reference: p. 4, para. 13Original Court PDF
National Highways Authority Of IndiavsRoadway Solution India Pvt. Ltd.
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in