{"id":360340,"date":"2025-09-16T15:00:34","date_gmt":"2025-09-16T09:30:34","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=360340"},"modified":"2025-09-18T09:52:39","modified_gmt":"2025-09-18T04:22:39","slug":"delhi-high-court-desire-infrabuild-v-oyo-apartments-section-29a-extension-legal-news","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/09\/16\/delhi-high-court-desire-infrabuild-v-oyo-apartments-section-29a-extension-legal-news\/","title":{"rendered":"Delhi High Court | Petition for extension of Arbitral Tribunal\u2019s mandate non-maintainable once Award is delivered and challenged; Tribunal becomes \u2018functus officio\u2019<\/span>"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Delhi High Court<\/span>: In a petition filed by Desire Infrabuild Pvt Ltd. (petitioner) under Section 29A<\/a> of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996<\/a> (1996 Act) seeking extension of the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal by a period of 15 months i.e. from 14-01-2024 to 14-04-2025. Jasmeet Singh, J., held that the present Section 29A petition is belated and an attempt to cure an incurable defect. Thus, allowing the present petition would mean permitting the petitioner to not only enjoy the fruits of being a fence sitter but also putting a premium on its inaction, which is not the ambit and scope of Section 29A<\/a> of the 1996 Act<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The facts, in brief, are that on 03-03-2022 this Court appointed a sole arbitrator for adjudication of disputes between the parties. The pleadings were completed on 15-07-2022, and accordingly the arbitral mandate, under Section 29A<\/a> of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996<\/a>, was set to expire on 14-07-2023. On 18-07-2023, by mutual consent, the parties extended the Tribunal’s mandate by a further six months under Section 29A (3)<\/a> of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996<\/a>. The Tribunal reserved the award on 14-11-2023, but the extended mandate expired on 14-01-2024, rendering the Tribunal functus officio. Despite this, the award was rendered on 06-04-2024. On 04-07-2024 the respondent filed a petition under Section 34 challenging the award, and on 12-08-2024 this Court stayed operation of the award. Thereafter, on 27-01-2025, the petitioner instituted the present proceedings under Section 29A seeking extension of the tribunal’s mandate.<\/p>\n

The Section 29A petition was moved only after the arbitral award had already been delivered, challenged under Section 34, and stayed by the Court. The petitioner sought to retrospectively extend the tribunal’s mandate so as to validate the award dated 06-04-2024, despite its having been rendered after the mandate had lapsed. The core issue before the Court, therefore, was whether an application for extension of mandate under Section 29A is maintainable once the award has been pronounced and is already the subject of challenge proceedings.<\/p>\n

The petitioner contended that Section 29A empowers the Court to extend the mandate even after expiry of the statutory period and placed reliance on Chandok Machineries v. S.N. Sunderson & Co.<\/span>, 2018 SCC OnLine Del 11000<\/a> where it was held that steps taken by an arbitral tribunal beyond the prescribed time could be validated if the Court later extended the mandate. In contrast, the respondent relied on Powergrid Corporation of India Ltd. v. SPML Infra Ltd.<\/span>, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 8324<\/a> which clarified that extension under Section 29A can only be sought while arbitral proceedings are still pending and must necessarily precede the delivery of the award. Supporting this view, the respondent also cited decisions such as Suryadev Alloys & Power Pvt. Ltd. v. Shri Govindaraja Textiles Pvt. Ltd.<\/span>, 2020 SCC OnLine Mad 7858<\/a> to emphasize that once an award is delivered and the tribunal becomes functus officio, a retrospective extension of mandate is impermissible.<\/p>\n

The Court analyzed Section 29A<\/a> of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996<\/a>, noting its design as a strict time-bound framework for rendering awards, twelve months from completion of pleadings, extendable by six months with party consent. Subsection (4) provides that the arbitrator’s mandate automatically terminates if the award is not made within this period, unless the Court grants an extension, and also empowers the Court to reduce fees where delay is attributable to the tribunal. The second proviso to subsection (4) ensures continuity of the mandate while an application under subsection (5) for extension on sufficient cause is pending. Interpreting these provisions together, the Court held that although it has the power to extend time even after expiry, such power is predicated on arbitral proceedings still being alive; the statutory scheme must be construed purposively to uphold expedition in arbitration while permitting limited judicial intervention where necessary.<\/p>\n

The Court carefully examined the precedents cited by the parties to determine whether an extension of mandate could be granted after the award had already been delivered. It relied upon the Supreme Court’s decision in Rohan Builders (India) (P) Ltd. v. Berger Paints India Ltd.<\/span>, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2494<\/a> which held that an application under Section 29A(5) is maintainable even after expiry of the statutory period, provided such an application is pending, in which case the tribunal must refrain from pronouncing the award until the Court decides the extension. Thus, while the Court acknowledged that judicial power exists to extend the mandate post-expiry, it emphasized that this power is conditional upon there being a pending application, which keeps the tribunal’s mandate alive until the Court rules.<\/p>\n

In reconciling the authorities, the Court placed reliance on National Skill Development Corporation v. Best First Step Education (P) Ltd.<\/span>, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 1479<\/a> which harmonized Rohan Builders (supra)<\/span> with Powergrid Corporation of India Ltd. (supra)<\/span> and Chandok Machineries (supra).<\/span> The principle distilled was that if a Section 29A(5) application is filed before the award and remains pending, it preserves the tribunal’s authority and the proceedings; conversely, if no application is pending and the award is already delivered, a subsequent petition for extension is not maintainable since the tribunal has already become functus officio<\/span>. The Court also clarified that Chandok Machineries (supra)<\/span> was distinguishable because its peculiar facts involved the majority of arbitrators signing the award within the mandate period and only one signing thereafter, and hence it could not be read as a general rule permitting retrospective validation of awards rendered outside the mandate.<\/p>\n

The Court reiterated that Section 29A is to be construed purposively to secure the legislative goal of time-bound arbitration while permitting limited judicial extension where necessary. The proviso to Section 29A (4) preserves a Tribunal’s mandate only during the pendency of an extension application, thereby preventing a vacuum. Where no such application exists, and the award is delivered, the Tribunal ceases to have authority, and the defect cannot be retrospectively cured. By referring to the statutory scheme, including consensual extension under subsection (3) and judicial discretion under subsections (4)(5), along with provisions for reducing arbitrators’ fees in case of delay, the Court stated that the law balances expedition, accountability, and finality.<\/p>\n

Applying these principles, the Court found that the Arbitral mandate in the present case expired on 14-01-2024, and the award dated 06-04-2024 was thus rendered when the tribunal was already ‘functus officio’<\/span>. No application under Section 29A(5) had been filed before pronouncement of the award; instead, the petitioner approached the Court only on 27-01-2025, long after the respondent had challenged the award under Section 34 and secured an interim stay. On these facts, the petition was viewed as an attempt to “cure an incurable defect”<\/span> and to obtain retrospective validation of an invalid award, which would reward delay and “fence-sitting.”<\/span> The Court therefore held the petition not maintainable and dismissed it.<\/p>\n

[Desire Infrabuild Pvt Ltd v. Oyo Apartments Investments LLP, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 5929<\/a>, decided on 18-08-2025<\/span>]<\/p>\n\n

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

Mr. Shikhar Sharma, Mr. Mudit Ruhella, Mr. Aryaman Nehra, Mr. Vishal Tyagi, Advocates for petitioner<\/span><\/p>\n

Dr. Amit George, Mr. Chaitanya Kaushik, Mr. Avinash K Singh, Mr. Saurabh Pal, Ms. Seema Mehta, Ms. Vidhi Uppal, Mr. Dushyant Kaul, Advocates for respondent<\/span><\/p>\n

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

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

The petitioner sought to be a fence sitter and waited for the Award to be passed and thereafter filed the present petition after a lapse of more than 9 months. In the meantime, the respondent already filed a petition under Section 34, and the Award has already been stayed on this aspect.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67516,"featured_media":360343,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,10],"tags":[89204,89206,82360,72592,89207,72373,89205,89203],"class_list":["post-360340","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-highcourts","tag-arbitralmandate","tag-arbitrationandconciliationact","tag-arbitrationindia","tag-arbitrationlaw","tag-arbitrationproceedings","tag-delhihighcourt","tag-functusofficio","tag-section-29aarbitrationact"],"yoast_head":"\nDel HC on Section 29A petition for extension of arbitral tribunal's mandate| SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Delhi High Court held that a Section 29A petition for extension of arbitral mandate is not maintainable once the award has been delivered and challenged, as the tribunal becomes functus officio.\" \/>\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\/2025\/09\/16\/delhi-high-court-desire-infrabuild-v-oyo-apartments-section-29a-extension-legal-news\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Delhi High Court | Petition for extension of Arbitral Tribunal\u2019s mandate non-maintainable once Award is delivered and challenged; Tribunal becomes \u2018functus officio\u2019\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Delhi High Court held that a Section 29A petition for extension of arbitral mandate is not maintainable once the award has been delivered and challenged, as the tribunal becomes functus officio.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/09\/16\/delhi-high-court-desire-infrabuild-v-oyo-apartments-section-29a-extension-legal-news\/\" \/>\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=\"2025-09-16T09:30:34+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2025-09-18T04:22:39+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/Section-29A-petition.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=\"Arunima\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"Delhi High Court | Petition for extension of Arbitral Tribunal\u2019s mandate non-maintainable once Award is delivered and challenged; Tribunal becomes <span style="font-style: italic;">\u2018functus officio\u2019<\/span>\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Arunima\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"6 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\/2025\/09\/16\/delhi-high-court-desire-infrabuild-v-oyo-apartments-section-29a-extension-legal-news\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/09\/16\/delhi-high-court-desire-infrabuild-v-oyo-apartments-section-29a-extension-legal-news\/\",\"name\":\"Del HC on Section 29A petition for extension of arbitral tribunal's mandate| SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/09\/16\/delhi-high-court-desire-infrabuild-v-oyo-apartments-section-29a-extension-legal-news\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/09\/16\/delhi-high-court-desire-infrabuild-v-oyo-apartments-section-29a-extension-legal-news\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/Section-29A-petition.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2025-09-16T09:30:34+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2025-09-18T04:22:39+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/12b21fd8f65a572f39f27151710e16cb\"},\"description\":\"Delhi High Court held that a Section 29A petition for extension of arbitral mandate is not maintainable once the award has been delivered and challenged, as the tribunal becomes functus officio.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/09\/16\/delhi-high-court-desire-infrabuild-v-oyo-apartments-section-29a-extension-legal-news\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/09\/16\/delhi-high-court-desire-infrabuild-v-oyo-apartments-section-29a-extension-legal-news\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/09\/16\/delhi-high-court-desire-infrabuild-v-oyo-apartments-section-29a-extension-legal-news\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/Section-29A-petition.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/Section-29A-petition.webp\",\"width\":886,\"height\":590,\"caption\":\"Section 29A petition\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/09\/16\/delhi-high-court-desire-infrabuild-v-oyo-apartments-section-29a-extension-legal-news\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Delhi High Court | Petition for extension of Arbitral Tribunal\u2019s mandate non-maintainable once Award is delivered and challenged; Tribunal becomes \u2018functus officio\u2019\"}]},{\"@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\/12b21fd8f65a572f39f27151710e16cb\",\"name\":\"Arunima\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/8375ad8b08b1cbd970f4484d3218d81f3222a0ee3e463210f657780cb13e9569?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/8375ad8b08b1cbd970f4484d3218d81f3222a0ee3e463210f657780cb13e9569?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Arunima\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/scc-editor_9\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Del HC on Section 29A petition for extension of arbitral tribunal's mandate| SCC Times","description":"Delhi High Court held that a Section 29A petition for extension of arbitral mandate is not maintainable once the award has been delivered and challenged, as the tribunal becomes functus officio.","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\/2025\/09\/16\/delhi-high-court-desire-infrabuild-v-oyo-apartments-section-29a-extension-legal-news\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Delhi High Court | Petition for extension of Arbitral Tribunal\u2019s mandate non-maintainable once Award is delivered and challenged; Tribunal becomes \u2018functus officio\u2019","og_description":"Delhi High Court held that a Section 29A petition for extension of arbitral mandate is not maintainable once the award has been delivered and challenged, as the tribunal becomes functus officio.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/09\/16\/delhi-high-court-desire-infrabuild-v-oyo-apartments-section-29a-extension-legal-news\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2025-09-16T09:30:34+00:00","article_modified_time":"2025-09-18T04:22:39+00:00","og_image":[{"width":886,"height":590,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/Section-29A-petition.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Arunima","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"Delhi High Court | Petition for extension of Arbitral Tribunal\u2019s mandate non-maintainable once Award is delivered and challenged; Tribunal becomes <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">\u2018functus officio\u2019<\/span>","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Arunima","Est. reading time":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/09\/16\/delhi-high-court-desire-infrabuild-v-oyo-apartments-section-29a-extension-legal-news\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/09\/16\/delhi-high-court-desire-infrabuild-v-oyo-apartments-section-29a-extension-legal-news\/","name":"Del HC on Section 29A petition for extension of arbitral tribunal's mandate| SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/09\/16\/delhi-high-court-desire-infrabuild-v-oyo-apartments-section-29a-extension-legal-news\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/09\/16\/delhi-high-court-desire-infrabuild-v-oyo-apartments-section-29a-extension-legal-news\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/Section-29A-petition.webp","datePublished":"2025-09-16T09:30:34+00:00","dateModified":"2025-09-18T04:22:39+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/12b21fd8f65a572f39f27151710e16cb"},"description":"Delhi High Court held that a Section 29A petition for extension of arbitral mandate is not maintainable once the award has been delivered and challenged, as the tribunal becomes functus officio.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/09\/16\/delhi-high-court-desire-infrabuild-v-oyo-apartments-section-29a-extension-legal-news\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/09\/16\/delhi-high-court-desire-infrabuild-v-oyo-apartments-section-29a-extension-legal-news\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/09\/16\/delhi-high-court-desire-infrabuild-v-oyo-apartments-section-29a-extension-legal-news\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/Section-29A-petition.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/Section-29A-petition.webp","width":886,"height":590,"caption":"Section 29A petition"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/09\/16\/delhi-high-court-desire-infrabuild-v-oyo-apartments-section-29a-extension-legal-news\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Delhi High Court | Petition for extension of Arbitral Tribunal\u2019s mandate non-maintainable once Award is delivered and challenged; Tribunal becomes \u2018functus officio\u2019"}]},{"@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\/12b21fd8f65a572f39f27151710e16cb","name":"Arunima","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/8375ad8b08b1cbd970f4484d3218d81f3222a0ee3e463210f657780cb13e9569?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/8375ad8b08b1cbd970f4484d3218d81f3222a0ee3e463210f657780cb13e9569?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Arunima"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/scc-editor_9\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/Section-29A-petition.webp","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"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":360340,"position":0},"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":306874,"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\/","url_meta":{"origin":360340,"position":1},"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","author":"Apoorva","date":"November 9, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court issued notice in the present SLP and tagged it with SLP titled Rohan Builders (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. Berger Paints India Ltd.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"application under S.29A","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/application-under-S.29A.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/application-under-S.29A.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/application-under-S.29A.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/application-under-S.29A.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":360340,"position":2},"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":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":360340,"position":3},"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":333939,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/10\/26\/supreme-court-calcutta-hc-arbitration-mandate-extension\/","url_meta":{"origin":360340,"position":4},"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":322912,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/05\/25\/ap-hc-application-for-extension-of-passing-arbitral-award-filed-only-before-court-u-s-21e-of-ac-act-scctimes\/","url_meta":{"origin":360340,"position":5},"title":"Application for extending mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal for passing Award to be filed only before \u2018Court\u2019 as defined u\/s 2(1)(e) of A&C Act: Andhra Pradesh HC","author":"Arushi","date":"May 25, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cIf the intention of the Parliament were to vest the power of extending the mandate of an Arbitrator under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 only in High Court as envisaged under Section 11, then nothing could have prevented it from providing so.\u201d","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Andhra Pradesh High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Andhra-Pradesh-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\/Andhra-Pradesh-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Andhra-Pradesh-High-Court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Andhra-Pradesh-High-Court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/360340","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\/67516"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=360340"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/360340\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/360343"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=360340"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=360340"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=360340"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}