The Supreme Court has held that an application under Section 29A (5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking an extension of an arbitral tribunal's mandate is maintainable even after the statutory time limit has expired and an award has been rendered in the meantime.

A bench of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar clarified that if the mandate is extended, the tribunal can resume proceedings from the stage at which its mandate expired and complete the arbitration within the time granted by the court, without starting afresh.

“An application under Section 29A (5) for extension of the mandate of the arbitrator would be maintainable even after the expiry of the time under Sections 29A (1) and (3) and even after rendering of an award during that time.”, the Court observed.

The dispute arose from a Distribution Franchisee Agreement dated December 31, 2013, between South Bihar Power Distribution Company Ltd., India Power Corporation Ltd. and India Power Corporation (Bodhgaya) Ltd., later renamed Vikriti Power Ltd.

After disputes arose, the Patna High Court appointed Justice Shashank Kumar Singh as the sole arbitrator in 2018. When he could not continue, the High Court appointed former Chief Justice of India Justice Dipak Misra in March 2021, with the parties' consent. The proceedings resumed from the stage reached before the earlier arbitrator.

The agreement provided for a three-member tribunal, but the distribution company later challenged the appointment of a sole arbitrator. It also opposed a request by the respondents for an extension of the mandate after the arbitration could not be completed within the initial 12-month period and the additional six months permitted by Section 29A.

In September 2023, the Patna High Court rejected the company's objection to the sole arbitrator and extended the mandate by four months. The company challenged the decision before the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court explained that Section 29A(4) permits a court to extend the time for making an award even after the prescribed period has expired. An application under Section 29A(5) is therefore not rendered non-maintainable merely because the mandate has expired or an award has been rendered in the meantime.

The Court stressed that a restrictive interpretation could unnecessarily disrupt arbitration and force parties to restart proceedings despite the progress already made.

It observed that, once the mandate is extended, the tribunal would “pick up the thread from where it was left” and continue from the stage at which the mandate expired.

However, the Court clarified that maintainability does not mean an extension must automatically be granted. The applicant must establish sufficient cause, and the court may impose appropriate conditions.

“Section 29A, must not be interpreted to infer a threshold bar for an application under Section 29A(5) for extension of the mandate of the arbitrator even when an award is passed though after expiry of the mandate. Therefore, this Court answered the question framed by holding that an application under Section 29A(5) for extension of the mandate of the arbitrator would be maintainable even after the expiry of the time under Sections 29A(1) and (3) and even after rendering of an award during that time. If the mandate is extended, the arbitral tribunal will pick up the thread from where it was left and seamlessly continue the proceedings from the stage at which the mandate had expired and conclude the arbitration within the time granted.”, the Court observed.

Power to extend mandate of arbitral tribunal doesn't lie with High Court not exercising original civil jurisdiction

The judgment authored by Justice Bhuyan also held that the power to extend an arbitral mandate under Section 29A rests with the court defined under Section 2(1)(e) of the Act, ordinarily, the principal civil court of original jurisdiction in the district or a High Court exercising ordinary original civil jurisdiction.

A High Court does not acquire jurisdiction to extend the mandate merely because it appointed the arbitrator under Section 11.

In this case, the Principal District Judge had already extended the arbitrator's mandate by six months on March 23, 2026, following directions from the Supreme Court.

The Court lifted its earlier restraint on the declaration of the award and directed the arbitrator to conclude the proceedings within six weeks.

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s): Mr. C.A. Sundaram, Sr. Adv. Mr. Raju Ramchandaran, Sr. Adv. Mr. U.P. Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Manish Kumar Choudhary, Adv. Mr. Ashutosh Kumar, Adv. Mr. S.N.L. Karn, Adv. Ms. Srishti Choudhary, Adv. Ms. Shefali Choudhary, Adv. Mr. Mohammed Afeef, Adv. Ms. Shruti Narayan, Adv. Ms. Nida Khan Saleem, Adv. Ms. Namita Choudhary, AOR

For Respondent(s): Mr. Atmaram Nadkarni, Sr. Adv. Mr. Harminder Chawla, Adv. Mr. Gajanand Kirodiwal, Adv. Ms. Astha Nigam, Adv. Mr. Shivam Rajpal, Adv. Mr. Ayush Chatterjee, Adv. Mr. S.S. Rebello, Adv. Ms. Deepti Arya, Adv. Ms. Himanshi Nagpal, Adv. Ms. Manisha Gupta, Adv. Ms. Arzu Paul, Adv. Mr. Prashant Dixit, Adv. Mr. Raunak Parihar, Adv. Mr. Faisal Sherwani, AOR