{"id":306874,"date":"2023-11-09T12:00:14","date_gmt":"2023-11-09T06:30:14","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=306874"},"modified":"2023-11-15T11:07:53","modified_gmt":"2023-11-15T05:37:53","slug":"supreme-court-stays-cal-hc-order-restricting-application-filed-s-29a4-arbitration-act-after-expiry-term-of-tribunal","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/11\/09\/supreme-court-stays-cal-hc-order-restricting-application-filed-s-29a4-arbitration-act-after-expiry-term-of-tribunal\/","title":{"rendered":"Supreme Court stays Calcutta HC order which restricted application filed under S.29A(4) of Arbitration Act after expiry of term of the Tribunal"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Supreme Court:<\/span> In a petition for special leave to appeal filed by Vrindavan Advisory Services LLP (petitioner) against a Calcutta High Court judgment, wherein the Court held that the Application under Section 29-A(4)<\/a> of Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996<\/a> (‘Act, 1996’) cannot be filed post expiry of the term of the Tribunal, the division bench of Sanjiv Khanna and S.V.N. Bhatti, JJ. issued notice and stayed the operation of the impugned order.<\/p>\n

Background:<\/p>\n

An Agreement was entered into between the parties, whereby the petitioner had agreed to take a loan of Rs.30 crores from the respondent. In lieu of the same, the petitioner has placed shares of Adhunik Industries Ltd. as security of equivalent value with the respondent. The respondent, in breach of the agreement, had sold some parts of the shares without seeking authorisation from the petitioner. Thus, the parties were referred to arbitration. An application under Section 9<\/a> of the 1996 Act<\/a> was filed, restraining the respondent from selling the balance shares of Adhunik Industries to any third party, which was successfully granted by the Court. Simultaneously, an application under Section 11<\/a> of the 1996 Act<\/a> was filed for commencement of the arbitration proceedings and appointment of an arbitrator. The High Court appointed a Sole Arbitrator.<\/p>\n

The first mandate was terminated on 20-01-2018. Thereafter, the parties filed an application under Section 29-A<\/a> of the Act, 1996<\/a>, which was allowed, and the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal was extended for a period of eight months, and publishing the award stood extended till 30-05-2019. During the said mandate, the parties were in the process of settlement and sought time to produce written terms of settlement. Further, the second mandate of the Arbitrator expired on 30-05-2019. Again, an application was filed under Section 29A of the 1996 Act for extension of the mandate of the arbitrator which was allowed and the mandate of the arbitrator for making and publishing the award was extended till 24-02-2020. During this mandate, the proposed settlement terms which were contemplated to be executed were discussed in the sittings before the Arbitral Tribunal. The pleadings were completed in the month of January,2020. Thereafter, due to Covid-19 pandemic, the proceedings were in abeyance during that time. In the meantime, the mandate of the arbitrator also expired on 24-02-2020. Thereafter, the parties filed another application under Section 29-A(4)<\/a> of the 1996 Act<\/a>, which was allowed, and the mandate of the arbitrator was extended by a further period of six months till 11-03-2023.<\/p>\n

The petitioner forwarded the copy of the order dated 12-09-2022, to the Arbitrator, however, due to the prolonged illness of the Arbitrator, no steps could be taken for publishing the award and the mandate expired on 11-03-2023. After the termination of the mandate, the petitioner also suffered a stroke which left his 80% body paralyzed. After having recovered from the same, the petitioner made another application under Section 29A(4) of the 1996 for extension of the mandate of the Arbitrator to make and publish the award which was dismissed by the High Court on the ground that the court has no power to extend the arbitrator’s mandate after the mandate has already terminated and such extension will only be granted if appropriate application for extension was filed before the expiry of the mandate of the Arbitrator. Thus, the petitioner filed the present SLP.<\/p>\n

The High Court dismissed the Arbitration Petition by disallowing the petitioner’s prayer to extend the mandate of arbitration and refused to exercise its powers as laid down under Section 29-A(4)<\/a> and 29-A(5)<\/a> of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996<\/a>. The High Court has remarked that as the mandate terminated on 11-03-2023 and the present application was made four months thereafter; therefore, the scheme of the 1996 Act<\/a> does not permit the Court to extend the mandate any further.<\/p>\n

[Vrindavan Advisory Services LLP v Deep Shambhulal Bhanushali, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1466<\/a>, Order dated 06-11-2023<\/span>]<\/p>\n\n

Advocates who appeared in this case :<\/p>\n

For Petitioner(s):<\/span> Advocate-On-Record Swarnendu Chatterjee, Advocate Deepakshi Garg, Advocate Yashwardhan Singh, Advocate Megha Saha, Advocate Nilay Sengupta, Advocate Ankit Agarwal, Advocate Deepakshi Garg, Advocate Yashwardhan Singh, Advocate Megha Saha<\/p>\n

Buy Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996   HERE<\/a><\/h3>\n

\"arbitration<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Supreme Court issued notice in the present SLP and tagged it with SLP titled Rohan Builders (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. Berger Paints India Ltd.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67512,"featured_media":306891,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,9],"tags":[62612,3226,10131,48887,2689,40328,43686,5363],"class_list":["post-306874","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-supremecourt","tag-application-under-s-29a","tag-arbitration","tag-arbitration-and-conciliation-act","tag-arbitration-tribunal","tag-Calcutta_High_Court","tag-covid-19-pandemic","tag-slp","tag-supreme-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSC stays Calcutta HC order restricting application filed under S.29A(4) of Arbitration Act after expiry of term of Tribunal | SCC Blog<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"SC stayed Calcutta HC order restricting application filed under S.29A(4) of Arbitration Act after expiry of term of Tribunal\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/11\/09\/supreme-court-stays-cal-hc-order-restricting-application-filed-s-29a4-arbitration-act-after-expiry-term-of-tribunal\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Supreme Court stays Calcutta HC order which restricted application filed under S.29A(4) of Arbitration Act after expiry of term of the Tribunal\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Supreme Court stayed Calcutta HC order holding that application under S. 29A of Arbitration Act cannot be filed post expiry of term of Tribunal\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/11\/09\/supreme-court-stays-cal-hc-order-restricting-application-filed-s-29a4-arbitration-act-after-expiry-term-of-tribunal\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2023-11-09T06:30:14+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2023-11-15T05:37:53+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/application-under-S.29A.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"886\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"590\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Apoorva\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"Supreme Court stays Calcutta HC order which restricted application filed under S.29A(4) of Arbitration Act after expiry of term of the Tribunal\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Apoorva\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"4 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/11\/09\/supreme-court-stays-cal-hc-order-restricting-application-filed-s-29a4-arbitration-act-after-expiry-term-of-tribunal\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/11\/09\/supreme-court-stays-cal-hc-order-restricting-application-filed-s-29a4-arbitration-act-after-expiry-term-of-tribunal\/\",\"name\":\"SC stays Calcutta HC order restricting application filed under S.29A(4) of Arbitration Act after expiry of term of Tribunal | SCC Blog\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/11\/09\/supreme-court-stays-cal-hc-order-restricting-application-filed-s-29a4-arbitration-act-after-expiry-term-of-tribunal\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/11\/09\/supreme-court-stays-cal-hc-order-restricting-application-filed-s-29a4-arbitration-act-after-expiry-term-of-tribunal\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/application-under-S.29A.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2023-11-09T06:30:14+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2023-11-15T05:37:53+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/288d814d0864b57168e08daa1940a1c9\"},\"description\":\"SC stayed Calcutta HC order restricting application filed under S.29A(4) of Arbitration Act after expiry of term of Tribunal\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/11\/09\/supreme-court-stays-cal-hc-order-restricting-application-filed-s-29a4-arbitration-act-after-expiry-term-of-tribunal\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/11\/09\/supreme-court-stays-cal-hc-order-restricting-application-filed-s-29a4-arbitration-act-after-expiry-term-of-tribunal\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/11\/09\/supreme-court-stays-cal-hc-order-restricting-application-filed-s-29a4-arbitration-act-after-expiry-term-of-tribunal\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/application-under-S.29A.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/application-under-S.29A.webp\",\"width\":886,\"height\":590,\"caption\":\"Supreme Court stays Calcutta HC order holding that application under S. 29A (4) of Arbitration Act cannot be filed post expiry of the term of Tribunal\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/11\/09\/supreme-court-stays-cal-hc-order-restricting-application-filed-s-29a4-arbitration-act-after-expiry-term-of-tribunal\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Supreme Court stays Calcutta HC order which restricted application filed under S.29A(4) of Arbitration Act after expiry of term of the Tribunal\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/288d814d0864b57168e08daa1940a1c9\",\"name\":\"Apoorva\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/549edb3ed2c7046a0c504583cf71db32c50251c1260a6331b2cc2973e80b0e91?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/549edb3ed2c7046a0c504583cf71db32c50251c1260a6331b2cc2973e80b0e91?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Apoorva\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/scc-editor\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"SC stays Calcutta HC order restricting application filed under S.29A(4) of Arbitration Act after expiry of term of Tribunal | SCC Blog","description":"SC stayed Calcutta HC order restricting application filed under S.29A(4) of Arbitration Act after expiry of term of Tribunal","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/11\/09\/supreme-court-stays-cal-hc-order-restricting-application-filed-s-29a4-arbitration-act-after-expiry-term-of-tribunal\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Supreme Court stays Calcutta HC order which restricted application filed under S.29A(4) of Arbitration Act after expiry of term of the Tribunal","og_description":"Supreme Court stayed Calcutta HC order holding that application under S. 29A of Arbitration Act cannot be filed post expiry of term of Tribunal","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/11\/09\/supreme-court-stays-cal-hc-order-restricting-application-filed-s-29a4-arbitration-act-after-expiry-term-of-tribunal\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2023-11-09T06:30:14+00:00","article_modified_time":"2023-11-15T05:37:53+00:00","og_image":[{"width":886,"height":590,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/application-under-S.29A.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Apoorva","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"Supreme Court stays Calcutta HC order which restricted application filed under S.29A(4) of Arbitration Act after expiry of term of the Tribunal","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Apoorva","Est. reading time":"4 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/11\/09\/supreme-court-stays-cal-hc-order-restricting-application-filed-s-29a4-arbitration-act-after-expiry-term-of-tribunal\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/11\/09\/supreme-court-stays-cal-hc-order-restricting-application-filed-s-29a4-arbitration-act-after-expiry-term-of-tribunal\/","name":"SC stays Calcutta HC order restricting application filed under S.29A(4) of Arbitration Act after expiry of term of Tribunal | SCC Blog","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/11\/09\/supreme-court-stays-cal-hc-order-restricting-application-filed-s-29a4-arbitration-act-after-expiry-term-of-tribunal\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/11\/09\/supreme-court-stays-cal-hc-order-restricting-application-filed-s-29a4-arbitration-act-after-expiry-term-of-tribunal\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/application-under-S.29A.webp","datePublished":"2023-11-09T06:30:14+00:00","dateModified":"2023-11-15T05:37:53+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/288d814d0864b57168e08daa1940a1c9"},"description":"SC stayed Calcutta HC order restricting application filed under S.29A(4) of Arbitration Act after expiry of term of Tribunal","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/11\/09\/supreme-court-stays-cal-hc-order-restricting-application-filed-s-29a4-arbitration-act-after-expiry-term-of-tribunal\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/11\/09\/supreme-court-stays-cal-hc-order-restricting-application-filed-s-29a4-arbitration-act-after-expiry-term-of-tribunal\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/11\/09\/supreme-court-stays-cal-hc-order-restricting-application-filed-s-29a4-arbitration-act-after-expiry-term-of-tribunal\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/application-under-S.29A.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/application-under-S.29A.webp","width":886,"height":590,"caption":"Supreme Court stays Calcutta HC order holding that application under S. 29A (4) of Arbitration Act cannot be filed post expiry of the term of Tribunal"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/11\/09\/supreme-court-stays-cal-hc-order-restricting-application-filed-s-29a4-arbitration-act-after-expiry-term-of-tribunal\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Supreme Court stays Calcutta HC order which restricted application filed under S.29A(4) of Arbitration Act after expiry of term of the Tribunal"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/288d814d0864b57168e08daa1940a1c9","name":"Apoorva","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/549edb3ed2c7046a0c504583cf71db32c50251c1260a6331b2cc2973e80b0e91?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/549edb3ed2c7046a0c504583cf71db32c50251c1260a6331b2cc2973e80b0e91?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Apoorva"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/scc-editor\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/application-under-S.29A.webp","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":272263,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/08\/26\/calcutta-high-court-conduct-of-parties-not-a-substitute-for-an-arbitration-agreement\/","url_meta":{"origin":306874,"position":0},"title":"Calcutta High Court | Conduct of Parties – not a substitute for an arbitration agreement","author":"Editor","date":"August 26, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"\u00a0 \u00a0 Calcutta High Court: While deciding a review petition, Debangsu Basak, J. held that the court while exercising powers under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 cannot substitute arbitration agreement with conduct of parties. Facts of the Case The respondent filed an application under Section 11\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Calcutta High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/calcutta_high_court.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/calcutta_high_court.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/calcutta_high_court.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/calcutta_high_court.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/calcutta_high_court.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":333939,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/10\/26\/supreme-court-calcutta-hc-arbitration-mandate-extension\/","url_meta":{"origin":306874,"position":1},"title":"Supreme Court sets aside Calcutta HC judgment denying extension of arbitration mandate beyond deadline for making an award; Directs fresh adjudication of petition","author":"Apoorva","date":"October 26, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"In the Judgment dated 12-09-2024, Supreme Court had held that an application for extension of time for passing an arbitral award under Section 29A (4) read with Section 29A (5) is maintainable even after the expiry of the twelve-month or the extended six-month period. The court, while adjudicating such extension\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Arbitral mandate extension","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/Arbitral-mandate-extension.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/Arbitral-mandate-extension.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/Arbitral-mandate-extension.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/Arbitral-mandate-extension.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":330775,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/09\/14\/application-for-extension-of-time-passing-arbitral-award-arbit-act-maintainable-after-expiry-term-tribunal-sc\/","url_meta":{"origin":306874,"position":2},"title":"Application for extension of time for passing arbitral award under Section 29A of Arbitration Act is maintainable even after 18-month deadline for making of award: SC","author":"Apoorva","date":"September 14, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cSection 29A intends to ensure the timely completion of arbitral proceedings while allowing Courts the flexibility to grant extensions when warranted. Prescribing a limitation period, unless clearly stated in words or necessary, should not be accepted. Bar by limitation has penal and fatal consequences.\u201d","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Section 29A of Arbitration Act","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/09\/Section-29A-of-Arbitration-Act-1.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/09\/Section-29A-of-Arbitration-Act-1.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/09\/Section-29A-of-Arbitration-Act-1.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/09\/Section-29A-of-Arbitration-Act-1.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":308056,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/11\/30\/calcutta-high-court-allows-extension-of-arbitral-mandate-under-section-29a4-of-the-arbitration-and-conciliation-act-1996-scc-blog\/","url_meta":{"origin":306874,"position":3},"title":"Calcutta High Court allows 6 months extension of Arbitral Mandate under Section 29A(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996","author":"Ritu","date":"November 30, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"Calcutta High Court emphasized the distinction between vigilant litigants and those contributing to unnecessary delays in the arbitration process, ultimately ruling in favor of the petitioner.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"calcutta high court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/calcutta-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/calcutta-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/calcutta-high-court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/calcutta-high-court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":325070,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/06\/25\/can-mandate-of-arbitral-tribunal-extended-us-29a-of-arbitration-act-after-expiry-of-mandate-dhc-answers\/","url_meta":{"origin":306874,"position":4},"title":"Can mandate of arbitral tribunal be extended u\/s 29A of the Arbitration Act, even after expiry of such mandate? Delhi HC answers","author":"Editor","date":"June 25, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, empowers Courts to extend mandate of arbitral tribunals beyond the specified limitation.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Delhi High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":240015,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/12\/02\/hp-hc-claim-barred-by-limitation-is-a-question-of-law-and-facts-which-arbitral-tribunal-or-arbitrator-has-to-consider-on-the-basis-of-record-petition-allowed\/","url_meta":{"origin":306874,"position":5},"title":"HP HC | Claim barred by limitation is a question of law and facts which Arbitral Tribunal or Arbitrator has to consider on the basis of record; petition allowed","author":"Editor","date":"December 2, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"Himachal Pradesh High Court: L. Narayana Swamy CJ., while exercising its powers under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, appointed an Arbitrator and further allowed to either determine its own procedure for settling the dispute or run itself as per Section 23 and Section 29A of the\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/306874","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/67512"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=306874"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/306874\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/306891"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=306874"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=306874"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=306874"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}