Section 29A Permits The Court To Extend The Mandate Of The Arbitral Tribunal Even When The Application Is Made After The Expiry Of Time Limit Provided Therein: Delhi High Court

The bench of Justice Sachin Datta held that the purport of Section 29A of the A&C Act is clearly not to tie the hands of the parties or the court, and prevent extension of time even where warranted, simply because the petition under Section 29A(4) of the A&C Act came to be filed a few days after expiration of the deadline contemplated under Section 29A(1) or Section 29A(3) of the A&C Act.

Facts

The Court was hearing two applications under Section 29A of the A&C Act seeking extension of the time to allow the arbitral tribunal to complete the arbitral proceedings and to deliver the award.

While application in one reference was moved within the time period provided under Section 29A, but, in the other reference, the application was moved a few days after the time provided under the Section had expired.

Ground(s) of Objection

The respondent objected to the maintainability of the application moved after the expiry of the time period on the ground that the mandate of the arbitrator stood terminated upon the expiry of the said time period and it cannot be reviewed. It contended that it was incumbent upon the petitioner/applicant to have moved this application during the subsistence of the period.

Analysis by the Court

The Court observed that admittedly the arbitral proceedings are at advanced stage and the arbitrator has acted with expedition and despatch in the conduct of the arbitration proceedings.

The Court held that Section 29A does not contemplate any inflexible outer deadline for completion of arbitral proceedings, and affords flexibility to the contracting parties, and also to the Court for extension of the time period in appropriate cases.

The Court disagreed with the view taken by the High Cour of Calcutta in Rohan Builders wherein it held that the mandate of the arbitrator terminates on the expiry of the time limits provided under Section 29A and it cannot be reviewed by making an application subsequently, therefore, it is incumbent upon an party to make an application within the subsistence of the mandate.

The Court held that the words “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 has the power to extend the mandate even when the said period has expired and it is not incumbent upon a party to make an application during the subsistence of the said period.

The Court held that taking a view that application has to be made within the said period only would not only be in teeth of the express words of the Section but also undermines the efficacy of arbitral process.

Accordingly, the Court rejected the objection raised on behalf of the respondent to the maintainability of the application seeking extension of time moved a few days after the expiry of the time period provided under Section 29A for the completion of arbitral proceedings and making of the consequent award.

Case Title: ATC Telecom Infrastructure Pvt Ltd v. BSNL

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1099

Date: 06.11.2023

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Piyush Sharma, Mr. Aditya N. Prasad, Mr. Subhoday Banerjee and Mr. Nishank Bhardwaj, Advs

Counsel for the Respondent: Ms. Leena Tuteja and Ms. Ishita Kadyan, Advs.

Click Here To Read/Download Order