Facts
The parties entered into a Work Order on 12.10.2018 for RCC and allied works at the "Page Three Residencies" project
Source reference: p.1-2Following disputes, a Sole Arbitrator was appointed by the High Court on 01.02.2024
Source reference: p.2Arbitral proceedings commenced in March 2023, and pleadings were completed on 11.09.2024
Source reference: p.2Under the statutory timeline, the mandate was initially set to expire on 10.09.2025; however, the parties mutually extended the mandate by six months until 11.03.2026
Source reference: p.2Due to the filing of additional documents and applications, the proceedings did not conclude, and final arguments remained pending
Source reference: p.2The parties jointly approached the Court seeking a further one-year extension of the mandate
Source reference: p.1-2Issues
1. Whether sufficient cause exists under Section 29A(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to grant a further extension of the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal
Source reference: p.4Law Applied
The Court applied Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which mandates that an award must be made within 12 months of the completion of pleadings, with an allowable 6-month consensual extension by the parties
Source reference: p.3Beyond this, Section 29A(4) and (5) empower the Court to extend the mandate upon an application by a party for "sufficient cause" and on such terms as deemed fit
Source reference: p.3The Court also referenced Rohan Builders (India) Private Limited v. Berger Paints India Limited, wherein the Supreme Court clarified the scope and mandate of Section 29A
Source reference: p.4Reasoning
The Court noted that Section 29A does not allow for the "routine grant" of extensions and requires a judicial assessment of the progress of the arbitration
Source reference: p.4In this instance, the Court observed that the proceedings had reached the stage of final arguments but were delayed due to the filing of additional documents and various applications by the parties
Source reference: p.2, 4Given that the proceedings were at an advanced stage and that both parties were ad idem (in agreement) regarding the necessity of more time, the Court found that these circumstances constituted "sufficient cause" to prevent the termination of the arbitrator's mandate
Source reference: p.4Holding
The Court granted the petition and extended the mandate of the Sole Arbitrator for one year from 11.03.2026, setting the new deadline as 10.03.2027
The Court also regularized the period from the expiry of the previous mandate until the date of the order
Source reference: p.5The petition and all pending applications were disposed of in these terms
Source reference: p.5Original Court PDF
M/S Home And Soul Infratech Private LimitedvsM/S Raj Krishna Construction Company
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in