COURT MAY EXTEND ARBITRAL MANDATE UNDER SECTION 29A UPON FINDING SUFFICIENT CAUSE ARISING FROM MEDICAL EMERGENCIES.

The Petitioner and Respondent entered into an Engineering, Procurement and Construction (EPC) Contract on November 11, 2021, for the Pratapgarh Bypass Project in Uttar Pradesh.

Disputes arose regarding reciprocal obligations, Right of Way (ROW), and project delays, leading to the constitution of a three-member Arbitral Tribunal on July 7, 2024.

The proceedings progressed through pleadings, evidence, and oral arguments, with written submissions filed on January 24, 2026.

The tribunal’s mandate, previously extended by six months under Section 29A(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, was set to expire on July 4, 2026.

Due to a medical emergency involving arbitrator Shri Bhawani Dutt Joshi, the tribunal directed the parties to seek a further extension from the Court.

1. Whether sufficient cause exists under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act to grant a further extension of the Arbitral Tribunal’s mandate.

2. Whether an extension of six months is necessary given that the proceedings have reached the stage of final award publication.

Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which empowers the Court to extend the mandate of an Arbitral Tribunal upon the showing of "sufficient cause".

Rohan Builders (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Berger Paints India Ltd., which established that extensions are not granted as a matter of course and require judicial satisfaction of sufficient cause, noting that delays by the tribunal itself should generally be avoided.

The Court found that sufficient cause was established due to the medical emergency of an arbitrator (angioplasty), which constituted a delay not attributable to a lack of diligence by the parties or the tribunal.

The Court reasoned that refusing an extension at this advanced stage—where only the publication of the award remains—would frustrate the legislative intent of Section 29A and render the completed proceedings futile.

The Court observed that since oral arguments and written submissions were already concluded by January 2026, a six-month extension was excessive; a three-month period was deemed sufficient to maintain the momentum of the "expeditious" scheme of the Act.

The Court granted the petition in part, extending the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal for a period of three months effective from July 4, 2026. The petition and related applications were disposed of accordingly.