LI Network
Published on: November 08, 2023 at 17:50 IST
The Delhi High Court has affirmed that Section 29A of the A&C Act provides the court with the authority to extend the mandate of an arbitrator even when the application for an extension is filed after the time limit specified for making the award has expired.
In a recent case, the High Court, presided over by Justice Sachin Datta, clarified that Section 29A of the A&C Act does not intend to restrict the parties or the court from granting an extension of time when it is warranted, even if the application under Section 29A(4) of the A&C Act is filed a few days after the expiration of the deadlines defined in Section 29A(1) or Section 29A(3) of the A&C Act.
Background
The Court heard two applications under Section 29A of the A&C Act, both seeking an extension of time to allow the arbitral tribunal to conclude the arbitral proceedings and deliver the award. One application was filed within the stipulated time period as per Section 29A, while the other was submitted a few days after the time limit had lapsed.
Objection Raised
The respondent raised an objection to the application filed after the expiration of the time period, arguing that the arbitrator’s mandate had terminated with the passage of the time period, making it irrevocable. It contended that the petitioner/applicant should have submitted the application during the ongoing period.
Court’s Analysis
The Court noted that the arbitral proceedings were at an advanced stage, and the arbitrator had expedited the arbitration process.
It emphasized that Section 29A does not impose a rigid external deadline for completing arbitral proceedings, granting flexibility to the contracting parties and the Court to extend the time period in suitable cases.
The Court disagreed with the position taken by the Calcutta High Court in the Rohan Builders case, which stated that the arbitrator’s mandate ends when the time limits specified under Section 29A expire, and such termination cannot be revisited through a subsequent application. According to the Delhi High Court, it is not mandatory for a party to submit an application while the mandate is ongoing.
The Court highlighted that the language of Section 29A, which states that “the mandate of the arbitrator(s) shall terminate unless the Court has, either prior to or after the expiry of the period so specified, extended the period,” clearly indicates that the Court possesses the authority to extend the mandate even after the expiration of the specified period.
The Court’s view is aligned with the express wording of the Section and reinforces the effectiveness of the arbitral process.
Consequently, the Court rejected the respondent’s objection to the application seeking an extension of time, which was filed a few days after the expiration of the time period defined under Section 29A for the completion of arbitral proceedings and the subsequent award.
Case Title: ATC Telecom Infrastructure Pvt Ltd v. BSNL, OMP(MISC)(COMM) 466 of 2023
