Facts
The Petitioner (DDA) and the Respondent entered into an agreement on 15.03.2011.
Source reference: no citationFollowing disputes, a Sole Arbitrator was appointed by the Delhi High Court on 09.10.2023.
Source reference: p. 2The Arbitrator entered reference on 03.11.2023, and pleadings were completed on 23.04.2024.
Source reference: p. 3The statutory 12-month mandate expired on 22.04.2025, but was extended by mutual consent for six months until 06.10.2025.
Source reference: p. 3The Petitioner initially filed this petition for extension on 26.11.2025 but withdrew it on 12.12.2025.
Source reference: p. 2-3Subsequently, the Petitioner filed I.A. 14263/2026 seeking restoration of the petition, which the Respondent did not oppose.
Source reference: p. 2Issues
1. Whether the petition for extension of the arbitral mandate, previously withdrawn, should be restored to its original position.
Source reference: p. 2, para 52. Whether the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal should be extended under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, despite the expiry of the previous mandate.
Source reference: p. 3, para 7; p. 4, para 13Law Applied
The court applied Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, regarding the inherent powers of the court to restore a withdrawn petition.
Source reference: p. 1Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which mandates a 12-month timeline for awards (sub-section 1), allows for a 6-month mutual extension (sub-section 3), and empowers the Court to grant further extensions for sufficient cause (sub-sections 4 and 5).
Source reference: p. 4-5The court also referenced the Supreme Court’s interpretation of Section 29A in Rohan Builders (India) Private Limited v. Berger Paints India Limited [2024 SCC OnLine SC 2494].
Source reference: p. 5, para 16Reasoning
The court first addressed the procedural hurdle by allowing the restoration application (I.A. 14263/2026), noting that the Respondent had no objection to the revival of the petition.
Source reference: p. 2Regarding the extension of the mandate, the court reviewed the timeline of proceedings: the pleadings were completed on 23.04.2024, and the mutually extended mandate had expired on 06.10.2025.
Source reference: p. 3Under Section 29A(4) and (5), the Court determined that sufficient cause existed to prevent the termination of the arbitrator's mandate.
Source reference: no citationThe court observed that the Petitioner sought the extension specifically for the rendering of the award.
Source reference: p. 3-4Given the "no objection" from the Respondent and the need to ensure the proceedings conclude in accordance with law, the court found it appropriate to exercise its discretion to extend the mandate and regularize the intervening period.
Source reference: p. 5Holding
The Court allowed the restoration of the petition.
It further granted a three-month extension of the Arbitrator’s mandate from the date of the order to conclude the proceedings and render the award.
Source reference: p. 5, para 17The court ordered that the period from the expiry of the previous mandate (07.10.2025) to the date of the judgement (21.05.2026) be regularized for the purposes of Section 29A of the Act.
Source reference: p. 5, para 18Original Court PDF
Delhi Development AuthorityvsDharamvir And Co
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in