Facts
The parties entered into a Concession Agreement on January 31, 2006
Source reference: p. 1which included a Substitution Agreement dated January 8, 2007, containing an arbitration clause under the rules of the Indian Council of Arbitration
Source reference: p. 2Pleadings were completed on December 27, 2019
Source reference: p. 2Due to the COVID-19 pandemic and Supreme Court orders in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020, the initial 12-month statutory period for the award was calculated to expire on December 11, 2022
Source reference: p. 2The High Court previously granted multiple extensions of the mandate through three separate O.M.P. petitions, extending the deadline to June 11, 2026
Source reference: p. 2The Petitioner filed the present application seeking a further extension as the arbitral proceedings are currently at the stage of "pronouncement of the award"
Source reference: p. 2-3Issues
1. Whether sufficient cause exists under Section 29A(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to grant a further extension of the Arbitral Tribunal's mandate for the pronouncement of the award.
Source reference: p. 3, para. 7-10Law 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 [Section 29A(1)] and allows for a consensus-based extension of 6 months [Section 29A(3)]; thereafter, the mandate expires unless extended by the Court for "sufficient cause" [Sections 29A(4) and 29A(5)]
Source reference: p. 3-4The court also relied on the Supreme Court’s interpretation in Rohan Builders (India) Private Limited v. Berger Paints India Limited (2024 SCC OnLine SC 2494), which clarifies the scope and ambit of the Court’s power to extend the mandate
Source reference: p. 4, para. 12Reasoning
The Court observed that the arbitral proceedings have reached the final stage of pronouncement of the award
Source reference: p. 2, para. 7It noted that the Respondent expressed no objection to the requested relief
Source reference: p. 3, para. 8Applying the statutory requirements of Section 29A, the Court reasoned that granting an extension was in the "interest of justice" to ensure "continuity and consistency" in the adjudication process
Source reference: p. 3, para. 10Since both parties were ad idem (in agreement) regarding the necessity of the extension and the award was imminent, the Court found no legal impediment to exercising its power under Section 29A(5) to prevent the termination of the mandate
Source reference: p. 3-4Holding
The Court answered the issue in the affirmative, finding sufficient grounds to allow the petition. It held that the mandate of the three-member Arbitral Tribunal should be preserved to finalize the proceedings
The Court ordered the extension of the mandate for a further period of four months, effective until October 11, 2026
Source reference: p. 1, 4Original Court PDF
M/S Kmp Expressways LtdvsIdbi Bank Limited
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in