Courts may grant a final Section 29A extension despite an earlier no-further-extension direction.

The petitioner sought an extension of the mandate of the learned Sole Arbitrator under Section 29A(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“A&C Act”) for completion of the arbitral proceedings and rendering of the award.

The Arbitrator had been appointed by the High Court on 24 February 2021, and the parties had initially extended the mandate mutually under Section 29A(3) until 31 August 2023.

Thereafter, the High Court extended the mandate on successive occasions, including by order dated 4 November 2025 for a further period of nine months, while recording that no further extension would be granted.

The proceedings remained at the stage of the respondent’s evidence.

Although RW-1, Mr. Ajay Singh, had filed his evidence affidavit and had been partly cross-examined, he subsequently ceased to be associated with the respondent and became unavailable for completion of his cross-examination.

The respondent sought permission to lead additional evidence through RW-2, Mr. Alok Kumar Gupta.

The petitioner opposed this course and sought the Court’s assistance under Section 27 of the A&C Act to secure RW-1’s presence.

The Arbitrator ultimately permitted the respondent to lead additional evidence through RW-2 and dismissed the petitioner’s application under Section 27.

The evidence had still not been completed when the present petition was considered.

The respondent opposed any further extension, relying on the earlier direction that no further extension would be granted and contending that the petitioner had failed to establish sufficient cause.

The petitioner contended that substantial time had been lost due to the non-availability of RW-1 and that the Arbitrator had conducted the proceedings diligently.

1. Whether the Court could extend the mandate of the Sole Arbitrator under Section 29A(4) of the A&C Act despite the earlier order stating that no further extension would be granted.

2. Whether sufficient cause existed for extending the arbitral mandate, having regard to the advanced stage of the proceedings, the non-availability of RW-1, and the conduct of the parties and the Arbitrator.

3. Whether the arbitral proceedings should be terminated or instead permitted to proceed to their logical conclusion in the interests of justice.

The Court applied Section 29A(4) of the A&C Act, which empowers the Court to extend the time for completion of arbitral proceedings and making of the award, and Section 29A(5), under which such extension may be granted where sufficient cause is shown and on such terms and conditions as the Court considers appropriate.

Section 29A(3), concerning mutual extension of the arbitral mandate by the parties, was relevant to the procedural history.

Relying on Rohan Builders (India) (P) Ltd. v. Berger Paints India Ltd., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2494, the Court held that Section 29A should be interpreted to preserve the Court’s flexibility to grant extensions where warranted; an extension is not automatic, but judicial discretion must be exercised upon sufficient cause, with delay attributable to the tribunal capable of attracting appropriate consequences.

The Court also relied on Sunil Bansilal Raisoni v. Bajaj Finserv Bajaj Finance Ltd., O.M.P. (MISC.)(COMM.) 103/2026 and Anil Goyal v. Prakash Plastic Industries, O.M.P. (MISC.)(COMM.) 189/2025, which recognise that, where parties have invested substantial time and resources and the proceedings are at an advanced stage, a final opportunity may be granted rather than terminating the arbitration.

The Court found that the proceedings had reached an advanced stage and that substantial time had been lost because RW-1, whose evidence had been partly recorded, was no longer available for cross-examination.

The resulting procedural applications concerning additional evidence and securing RW-1’s presence contributed to the delay.

Importantly, the Court found no want of diligence on the part of the Sole Arbitrator, who had conducted the proceedings diligently and made efforts to expedite them.

Although the earlier order had stated that no further extension would be granted, the Court treated that observation as subject to the exercise of its statutory discretion under Section 29A where sufficient cause and the interests of justice warranted intervention.

Applying the principles in Rohan Builders and the cited coordinate Bench decisions, the Court concluded that terminating the arbitration at that stage would render the parties’ substantial investment of time, effort, and resources futile.

The advanced stage of the proceedings and the need to bring them to a logical conclusion justified one further extension.

It extended the time for completion of the arbitral proceedings and making of the arbitral award until 31 March 2027 under Section 29A of the A&C Act.

The parties were directed to cooperate and avoid unnecessary delay, and the Sole Arbitrator was requested to schedule hearings at short intervals so that the proceedings could be concluded within the extended period.

The petition was accordingly allowed in those terms.