Legal Provisions Involved: Section 29A(4) and 29A(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; also Sections 34 and 36 regarding challenge and enforcement of awards.

Judgement by: Supreme Court of India.

Judge/Bench: Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar,

Facts

The dispute between the parties was referred to a sole arbitrator. As per law, the award had to be made within a fixed time, which, after extension by consent, ended in February 2024. 

However, the arbitrator delivered the award in May 2024, after the mandate had expired. One party challenged the award as invalid due to delay, while the other asked the court to extend the arbitrator’s mandate under Section 29A(5). The High Court refused to consider the extension request and set aside the award.

Key Legal Provisions

Section 29A(4) and 29A(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

Sections 34 and 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

Issues Raised

Whether a court can extend the arbitrator’s mandate after the deadline has passed and an award has already been issued?

Arguments of the case

The appellant argued that the court still has authority to extend time. The respondent argued that once the time expired, the arbitrator lost authority.

Judgement

The Supreme Court ruled that the court’s power to extend time continues even after a delayed award. It restored the extension application to the High Court to decide on merits, including whether sufficient cause exists.

Click here to VIEW the full judgement.