01Facts
The parties entered into a Memorandum of Understanding and a Supplementary MoU dated 10 June 2016 concerning the proposed joint development of land.
¶ 3–4 · pp. 6–7The appellant paid an advance of ₹15,00,000; the respondents were to discharge a mortgage, provide road access, rectify the survey number and execute a Joint Development Agreement and Power of Attorney.
¶ 3–4 · pp. 6–7The sole arbitrator made an award on 24 June 2019 directing performance of those obligations.
¶ 5–7 · pp. 7–9The respondents challenged the award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The District Court set it aside, finding that the arbitrator’s mandate had expired before the award was made.
¶ 5–7 · pp. 7–9The appellant appealed under Section 37.
¶ 1 · p. 502Issues
i.Whether the arbitrator’s mandate had terminated under Section 29A before the award was made, rendering the award liable to be set aside.
¶ 17–18 · pp. 17–19ii.Whether the parties’ participation in the arbitration, or the subsequent 2019 amendment to Section 29A, could preserve or validate the award.
¶ 9–10 · pp. 9–10 · ¶ 17–19 · pp. 17–1903Law Applied
Under Section 29A as it stood before the 2019 amendment, an award had to be made within 12 months from the date the tribunal entered upon the reference; the parties could extend that period by consent for up to six months under Section 29A(3).
¶ 14–17 · pp. 14–17If the award was not made within the prescribed or consensually extended period, the tribunal’s mandate terminated under Section 29A(4), unless the competent court extended the time, either before or after expiry.
¶ 14–17 · pp. 14–17The Court referred to Board of Control for Cricket in India v. Kochi Cricket Pvt. Ltd., (2018) 6 SCC 287, and decisions including Shapoorji Pallonji & Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Jindal India Thermal Power Ltd., 2020 SCC OnLine Del 2611, on the application of the amended provision to pending arbitrations; it also considered Rohan Builders (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Berger Paints India Ltd., (2025) 10 SCC 802, and C. Velusamy v. K. Indhera, 2026 INSC 112, concerning termination of the mandate and the effect of an award made after expiry.
¶ 14–17 · pp. 14–17Provisions in the judgment · 7 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 2Section 4Section 16Section 19Section 34Section 37
Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 Section 34
04Reasoning
The Court held that the 2019 amendment could not affect this award because it had already been made on 24 June 2019, before the amendment was notified on 30 August 2019; no arbitral proceeding remained pending on the notification date.
¶ 17 · p. 17Applying the pre-amendment Section 29A, the Court concluded that even if the parties’ conduct were treated as extending the time by the maximum six months, the tribunal’s mandate had expired after 18 months. No court extension had been obtained.
¶ 18 · pp. 18–19The parties’ failure to object in time could not prevent statutory termination of the mandate or validate the award.
¶ 18 · pp. 18–1905Holding
The Court answered the mandate issue against the appellant and held that the award was made after the arbitrator’s mandate had terminated, without a court-ordered extension.
¶ 19–20 · pp. 19–20The 2019 amendment did not apply to revive or validate the already-rendered award.
¶ 19–20 · pp. 19–20Both appeals were dismissed, and pending interlocutory applications were disposed of.
¶ 19–20 · pp. 19–20Original Court PDF
SRI MADHUSUDAN REDDYvsSMT MARIYAMMA
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
