{"id":360591,"date":"2025-09-18T11:00:19","date_gmt":"2025-09-18T05:30:19","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=360591"},"modified":"2025-09-18T10:44:00","modified_gmt":"2025-09-18T05:14:00","slug":"failing-timelines-under-section-29-a-of-the-arbitration-and-conciliation-act-1996-a-practitioners-insight","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/09\/18\/failing-timelines-under-section-29-a-of-the-arbitration-and-conciliation-act-1996-a-practitioners-insight\/","title":{"rendered":"Failing Timelines under Section 29-A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 \u2014 A Practitioner’s Insight"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Introduction<\/h2>\n

Section 29-A<\/a>1<\/sup><\/a> of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996<\/a> (1996 Act)2<\/sup><\/a> inserted by the<\/span> Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015<\/a> (2015 Amendment)3<\/sup><\/a> was envisioned as a discipline-enforcing provision. By capping the period for making an arbitral award to 12 months from the date of completion of pleadings and making it extendable by a further period of 6 months with consent of the parties, the legislature aimed to transform arbitration into a genuinely time-bound process.<\/span><\/p>\n

Nearly a decade later, the provision’s practical impact tells a different story. Real-world delays, procedural complexities, and evolving judicial interpretations have chipped away the intended rigour.<\/p>\n

This article examines how and why Section 29-A’s timelines are faltering in practice and highlights structural and operational defects that undermine its purpose in India’s arbitration landscape.<\/p>\n

Delay by design and default<\/h2>\n

From a practitioner’s perspective, while the idea of wrapping up arbitral proceedings within a 12-month framework may appear to be attractive at first glance, it often proves impractical when tested against the complex and layered realities of intricate and multilayered commercial disputes. The legislature has not fully accounted for factors such as: (i<\/span>) multiparty proceedings; (ii<\/span>) voluminous evidence both documentary and oral; (iii<\/span>) procedures based on principles of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908<\/a>4<\/sup><\/a> and the Evidence Act, 1872<\/a>5<\/sup><\/a> (now the Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023<\/a>6<\/sup><\/a>); (iv<\/span>) frequent adjournments on account of the parties; and (v<\/span>) absence of specific timelines for the Tribunal to decide interim or procedural applications (for instance, the ones filed under Sections 167<\/sup><\/a>, 178<\/sup><\/a><\/span>, 269<\/sup><\/a> and<\/span> 2710<\/sup><\/a> of the<\/span> 1996 Act).<\/span><\/p>\n

Collectively, these issues tend to push the proceedings well beyond the statutory limits. Meanwhile, the judiciary has liberally exercised its discretion in extending the timelines under Section 29-A(4), sometimes without imposing any meaningful cost on the parties or reducing the fees of the Tribunal or substituting the Tribunal (in case of latter’s fault). The judicial leniency, though justified in certain cases, has resulted in dilution of the timelines and in turn made it an aspirational benchmark rather than a mandate.<\/p>\n

Evolution of Section 29-A: From rigid timelines to judicial calibration<\/h2>\n

The courts have played a pivotal role in shaping how Section 29-A operates, exposing both its strengths and structural limitations.<\/p>\n

(1) Jurisdictional ambiguity<\/span><\/p>\n

Early cases grappled with the “correct court” to extend the arbitrator’s mandate:<\/p>\n

In URC Construction (P) Ltd.<\/span> v. BEML Ltd.<\/span>11<\/sup><\/a>, the Kerala High Court held that only the Principal Civil Court of Original Jurisdiction could entertain Section 29-A extension, excluding non-charter High Courts. This narrow definition was overruled in Lots Shipping Co. Ltd.<\/span> v. Cochin Port Trust<\/span>12<\/sup><\/a>, where the Kerala High Court adopted a purposive reading, extending jurisdiction to High Courts that appointed arbitrators under Section 1113<\/sup><\/a>.<\/p>\n

The Gujarat High Court in Nilesh Ramanbhai Patel<\/span> v. Bhanubhai Ramanbhai Patel<\/span>14<\/sup><\/a> explicitly rejected the URC<\/span> ruling15<\/sup><\/a>, holding that when arbitrators are appointed by the High Court or Supreme Court, the appointing court and not the District Court has extension jurisdiction.<\/p>\n

The aforesaid reasoning was endorsed by the Delhi High Court in DDA<\/span> v. Tara Chand Sumit Construction Co.<\/span>16<\/sup><\/a> and by the Bombay High Court in Cabra Instalaciones Y. Servicios<\/span> v. Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd.<\/span>17<\/sup><\/a> and Indicus Software (P) Ltd.<\/span> v. Infinite Uptime India (P) Ltd<\/span>.18<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

Finally, the Supreme Court in State of Meghalaya<\/span> v. BSC-C & C JV<\/span>19<\/sup><\/a> conclusively held that Section 29-A(4) jurisdiction lies only with the “Court” as defined under Section 2(1)(e<\/span>)20<\/sup><\/a> i.e. the Principal Civil Court of Original Jurisdiction, or a High Court only if the latter exercises ordinary original civil jurisdiction. Any substitution under Section 29-A(6) must follow from this Court’s extension power. This aligns with the Kerala High Court’s later purposive approach, while affirming that not every High Court qualifies unless it has original jurisdiction.<\/p>\n

The practical implications of the aforesaid ambiguity may have resulted in delay in passing the awards and created a procedural limbo, thereby undermining the goal of the legislature to expedite the proceedings.<\/p>\n

(2) Timing of extension applications<\/span><\/p>\n

Apart from the jurisdictional aspect, the courts also took a divergent view on when an application for extension of mandate is to be preferred.<\/p>\n

The Calcutta High Court in Rohan Builders (India) (P) Ltd.<\/span> v. Berger Paints India Ltd.<\/span>21<\/sup><\/a> and the Patna High Court in South Bihar Power Distribution Co. Ltd.<\/span> v. Bhagalpur Electricity Distribution Co. (P) Ltd.<\/span>22<\/sup><\/a>, had held that an application for extension of time under Section 29-A sub-sections (4) and (5) can only be made before the expiry of the mandate of the Tribunal. Once the mandate comes to an end on account of efflux of time of 12 months (or additional 6 months) the Court loses its powers to further extend the mandate.<\/p>\n

However, the Delhi High Court in ATC Telecom Infrastructure (P) Ltd.<\/span> v. BSNL<\/span>23<\/sup><\/a>, Wadia Techno-Engg. Services Ltd.<\/span> v. Married Accommodation Project Directorate<\/span>24<\/sup><\/a>, ATS Infrastructure Ltd.<\/span> v. Rasbehari Traders<\/span>25<\/sup><\/a>, Power Mech Projects Ltd.<\/span> v. Doosan Power Systems India (P) Ltd.<\/span>26<\/sup><\/a>, KMP Expressways Ltd.<\/span> v. IDBI Bank Ltd<\/span>.27<\/sup><\/a> and Reliance Infrastructure Ltd.<\/span> v. Madhyanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd.<\/span>28<\/sup><\/a>; the Bombay High Court in Nikhil H. Malkan<\/span> v. Standard Chartered Investment and Loans (India) Ltd.<\/span>29<\/sup><\/a>; the Kerala High Court in Hiran Valiiyakkil Lal<\/span> v. Vineeth M.V.<\/span>30<\/sup><\/a>; the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court in H.P. Singh<\/span> v. Railways<\/span>31<\/sup><\/a> and the Madras High Court in G.N. Pandian<\/span> v. S. Vasudevan<\/span>32<\/sup><\/a> have taken a view that an application for extension of mandate can be filed even after the expiry of 12 months (or extended period of 6 months) as contemplated under Section 29-A. The Calcutta High Court in its subsequent decision in Ashok Kumar Gupta<\/span> v. M.D. Creations<\/span>33<\/sup><\/a> has changed its stance to suit the above views of the various High Courts.<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court in Rohan Builders (India) (P) Ltd.<\/span> v. Berger Paints India Ltd.<\/span>34<\/sup><\/a>, has settled the law and accepted the aforesaid views of the Delhi, Bombay, Madras and Kerala High Courts and held that: (i<\/span>) the courts have the power to extend the period for making an award at any time before or after the mandated period; (ii<\/span>) the arbitral proceedings can continue during the pendency of an application to extend the mandate. However, the arbitrator ”may not” pronounce her award till the time the Court has decided upon its Section 29-A application; (iii<\/span>) the extension of time is to be granted if “sufficient cause” is shown by the parties; and (iv<\/span>) the extension is not to be granted mechanically, but it is a judicial exercise of discretion vested in the courts.<\/p>\n

The practical implication of the Supreme Court’s judgment35<\/sup><\/a> is that it preserves flexibility, whilst making the deadlines under Section 29-A merely aspirational. This judgment36<\/sup><\/a> highlights the tension between the legislative intents and arbitral realities.<\/p>\n

Exceeding litigation expense by creating parallel proceedings<\/h2>\n

Extending the Tribunal’s mandate often triggers additional legal cost. Parties may file multiple applications after the expiry of the initial period of 18 months, eroding arbitration’s promise as a quicker, cost-effective alternative to litigation.<\/p>\n

Way forward: Strengthening Section 29-A<\/h2>\n

(1) Party-driven extensions based on dispute complexity<\/span><\/p>\n

Parties, by mutual consent, should be allowed to extend the Tribunal’s mandate.<\/p>\n

The duration of such extensions should reflect the complexity of the dispute, restore party autonomy while minimising judicial intervention.<\/p>\n

(2) Flexible, non-uniform extension periods<\/span><\/p>\n

There cannot be a rigid formula granting 6-month extensions for all arbitrations. Parties should be allowed to determine the extension period appropriate to their case, allowing for greater procedural efficiency.<\/p>\n

(3) Judicial remedies for aggrieved parties<\/span><\/p>\n

An aggrieved party should be able to approach the Court under:<\/p>\n

(a<\/span>) Section 12 read with Section 13; or<\/p>\n

(b<\/span>) Section 15 (to terminate the arbitrator’s mandate); or<\/p>\n

(c<\/span>) Section 37 (to challenge procedural orders extending the mandate).<\/p>\n

Courts should ensure fast-track hearings for such proceedings to reduce delay.<\/p>\n

(4) Accountability mechanisms<\/span><\/p>\n

Parties causing delays should bear exemplary costs. If the Tribunal is responsible for delays, a reduction in fees (e.g. 15% per month of delay) could be imposed, reinforcing compliance with statutory timelines.<\/p>\n

(5) Procedural and administrative reforms<\/span><\/p>\n

(a<\/span>) Periodic reporting: Tribunals could periodically report to the appointing court, creating empirical data for effective monitoring.<\/p>\n

(b<\/span>) Standardised templates: Courts may standardise applications under Section 29-A to reduce voluminous pleadings.<\/p>\n

(c<\/span>) Mandatory disposal timeline: Courts could be mandated to decide Section 29-A applications within 30 days from filing, ensuring timely judicial intervention.<\/p>\n

The practical impact of these reforms would be combining flexibility, accountability and procedural efficiency, it can transform Section 29-A from a symbolic benchmark into a practical tool for expeditious arbitration. Addressing these structural and procedural defects requires a combination of legislative refinement, tribunal autonomy and judicial efficiency.<\/p>\n

Conclusion: Section 29-A — A lion without teeth<\/h2>\n

Nearly a decade in, Section 29-A remains a paradox: a speed gun without radar, a lion without teeth. Unless the legislature recalibrates timelines to match the dispute complexity, grants tribunals to manage procedures and enforce consequences for delay, the provisions will continue as a symbolic benchmark rather than a practical instrument for expedited arbitration.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n

*Advocate, Bombay High Court. Author can be reached at: adv.gupta.aditya@gmail.com<\/a>.<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

1.<\/a> Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, S. 29-A<\/a>.<\/p>\n

2.<\/a> Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996<\/a>.<\/p>\n

3.<\/a> Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015<\/a>.<\/p>\n

4.<\/a> Civil Procedure Code, 1908<\/a>.<\/p>\n

5.<\/a> Evidence Act, 1872<\/a>.<\/p>\n

6.<\/a> Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023<\/a>.<\/p>\n

7.<\/a> Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, S. 16<\/a>.<\/p>\n

8.<\/a> Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, S. 17<\/a>.<\/p>\n

9.<\/a> Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, S. 26<\/a>.<\/p>\n

10.<\/a> Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, S. 27<\/a>.<\/p>\n

11.<\/a> 2017 SCC OnLine Ker 20520<\/a>.<\/p>\n

12.<\/a> 2020 SCC OnLine Ker 21443<\/a>.<\/p>\n

13.<\/a> Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, S. 11<\/a>.<\/p>\n

14.<\/a> 2018 SCC OnLine Guj 5017<\/a>.<\/p>\n

15.<\/a> 2017 SCC OnLine Ker 20520<\/a>.<\/p>\n

16.<\/a> 2020 SCC OnLine Del 2501<\/a>.<\/p>\n

17.<\/a> 2019 SCC OnLine Bom 1437<\/a>.<\/p>\n

18.<\/a> 2023 SCC OnLine Bom 2880<\/a><\/p>\n

19.<\/a> 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1801<\/a>.<\/p>\n

20.<\/a> Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, S. 2(1)(e<\/span>)<\/a>.<\/p>\n

21.<\/a> 2023 SCC OnLine Cal 2645<\/a>.<\/p>\n

22.<\/a> 2023 SCC OnLine Pat 1658<\/a>.<\/p>\n

23.<\/a> 2023 SCC OnLine Del 7135.<\/a><\/p>\n

24.<\/a> 2023 SCC OnLine Del 2990<\/a>.<\/p>\n

25.<\/a> 2023 SCC OnLine Del 8647<\/a>.<\/p>\n

26.<\/a> 2024 SCC OnLine Del 4412<\/a>.<\/p>\n

27.<\/a> 2024 SCC OnLine Del 2617<\/a>.<\/p>\n

28.<\/a> 2023 SCC OnLine Del 4894<\/a>.<\/p>\n

29.<\/a> 2023 SCC OnLine Bom 2575<\/a><\/p>\n

30.<\/a> 2023 SCC OnLine Ker 5151<\/a>.<\/p>\n

31.<\/a> 2023 SCC OnLine J&K 1255<\/a>.<\/p>\n

32.<\/a> 2020 SCC OnLine Mad 737<\/a>.<\/p>\n

33.<\/a> 2024 SCC OnLine Cal 6909<\/a>.<\/p>\n

34.<\/a> 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2494<\/a>.<\/p>\n

35.<\/a> Rohan Builders case, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2494<\/a>.<\/p>\n

36.<\/a> Rohan Builders case<\/span>, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2494<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

by Aditya Gupta*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67011,"featured_media":360593,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[42503,1191],"tags":[82761,80195,89330,82360,72592,89329,89328,88308,89324,89326,89325,88821,74642,89327,89323],"class_list":["post-360591","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-legal-analysis","category-op-ed","tag-accesstojustice","tag-alternativedisputeresolution","tag-arbitrationchallenges","tag-arbitrationindia","tag-arbitrationlaw","tag-commercialdisputes","tag-courtintervention","tag-disputeresolution","tag-indianarbitration","tag-judicialdelay","tag-lawpractice","tag-legalframework","tag-legalinsights","tag-legalreforms","tag-section29a"],"yoast_head":"\nFailing Timelines under Section 29-A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 \u2014 A Practitioner's Insight | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Section 29-A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (1996 Act) inserted by the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015\" \/>\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\/18\/failing-timelines-under-section-29-a-of-the-arbitration-and-conciliation-act-1996-a-practitioners-insight\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Failing Timelines under Section 29-A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 \u2014 A Practitioner's Insight\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Section 29-A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (1996 Act) inserted by the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/09\/18\/failing-timelines-under-section-29-a-of-the-arbitration-and-conciliation-act-1996-a-practitioners-insight\/\" \/>\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=\"2025-09-18T05:30:19+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/Arbitration-timelines-India.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=\"Editor\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"Failing Timelines under Section 29-A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 \u2014 A Practitioner's Insight\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"8 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\/18\/failing-timelines-under-section-29-a-of-the-arbitration-and-conciliation-act-1996-a-practitioners-insight\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/09\/18\/failing-timelines-under-section-29-a-of-the-arbitration-and-conciliation-act-1996-a-practitioners-insight\/\",\"name\":\"Failing Timelines under Section 29-A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 \u2014 A Practitioner's Insight | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/09\/18\/failing-timelines-under-section-29-a-of-the-arbitration-and-conciliation-act-1996-a-practitioners-insight\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/09\/18\/failing-timelines-under-section-29-a-of-the-arbitration-and-conciliation-act-1996-a-practitioners-insight\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/Arbitration-timelines-India.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2025-09-18T05:30:19+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\"},\"description\":\"Section 29-A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (1996 Act) inserted by the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/09\/18\/failing-timelines-under-section-29-a-of-the-arbitration-and-conciliation-act-1996-a-practitioners-insight\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/09\/18\/failing-timelines-under-section-29-a-of-the-arbitration-and-conciliation-act-1996-a-practitioners-insight\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/09\/18\/failing-timelines-under-section-29-a-of-the-arbitration-and-conciliation-act-1996-a-practitioners-insight\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/Arbitration-timelines-India.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/Arbitration-timelines-India.webp\",\"width\":886,\"height\":590,\"caption\":\"Arbitration timelines India\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/09\/18\/failing-timelines-under-section-29-a-of-the-arbitration-and-conciliation-act-1996-a-practitioners-insight\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Failing Timelines under Section 29-A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 \u2014 A Practitioner’s Insight\"}]},{\"@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\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\",\"name\":\"Editor\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Editor\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Failing Timelines under Section 29-A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 \u2014 A Practitioner's Insight | SCC Times","description":"Section 29-A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (1996 Act) inserted by the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015","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\/18\/failing-timelines-under-section-29-a-of-the-arbitration-and-conciliation-act-1996-a-practitioners-insight\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Failing Timelines under Section 29-A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 \u2014 A Practitioner's Insight","og_description":"Section 29-A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (1996 Act) inserted by the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/09\/18\/failing-timelines-under-section-29-a-of-the-arbitration-and-conciliation-act-1996-a-practitioners-insight\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2025-09-18T05:30:19+00:00","og_image":[{"width":886,"height":590,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/Arbitration-timelines-India.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Editor","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"Failing Timelines under Section 29-A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 \u2014 A Practitioner's Insight","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Editor","Est. reading time":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/09\/18\/failing-timelines-under-section-29-a-of-the-arbitration-and-conciliation-act-1996-a-practitioners-insight\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/09\/18\/failing-timelines-under-section-29-a-of-the-arbitration-and-conciliation-act-1996-a-practitioners-insight\/","name":"Failing Timelines under Section 29-A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 \u2014 A Practitioner's Insight | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/09\/18\/failing-timelines-under-section-29-a-of-the-arbitration-and-conciliation-act-1996-a-practitioners-insight\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/09\/18\/failing-timelines-under-section-29-a-of-the-arbitration-and-conciliation-act-1996-a-practitioners-insight\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/Arbitration-timelines-India.webp","datePublished":"2025-09-18T05:30:19+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe"},"description":"Section 29-A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (1996 Act) inserted by the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/09\/18\/failing-timelines-under-section-29-a-of-the-arbitration-and-conciliation-act-1996-a-practitioners-insight\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/09\/18\/failing-timelines-under-section-29-a-of-the-arbitration-and-conciliation-act-1996-a-practitioners-insight\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/09\/18\/failing-timelines-under-section-29-a-of-the-arbitration-and-conciliation-act-1996-a-practitioners-insight\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/Arbitration-timelines-India.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/Arbitration-timelines-India.webp","width":886,"height":590,"caption":"Arbitration timelines India"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/09\/18\/failing-timelines-under-section-29-a-of-the-arbitration-and-conciliation-act-1996-a-practitioners-insight\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Failing Timelines under Section 29-A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 \u2014 A Practitioner’s Insight"}]},{"@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\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe","name":"Editor","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Editor"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/Arbitration-timelines-India.webp","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":298894,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/08\/himachal-pradesh-hc-consent-by-parties-can-be-expressed-or-implied-for-extending-arbitral-period\/","url_meta":{"origin":360591,"position":0},"title":"Consent for extending arbitral period under Section 29A(3) of 2015 Amendment Act doesn\u2019t need to be express or in writing: Himachal Pradesh HC","author":"Editor","date":"August 8, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cThe consensus of the parties in proceeding with the arbitration case beyond twelve months without raising any objection to the continuation of proceeding does amount to consent. On the basis of such consent, the arbitral award if passed after six months would be a valid award.\u201d","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"himachal pradesh high court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/himachal-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\/2023\/05\/himachal-pradesh-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/himachal-pradesh-high-court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/himachal-pradesh-high-court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":222603,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/11\/27\/section-87-of-the-arbitration-and-conciliation-act-1996-struck-down-heres-why\/","url_meta":{"origin":360591,"position":1},"title":"Section 87 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 struck down. Here’s why","author":"Prachi Bhardwaj","date":"November 27, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court: The 3-judge bench of RF Nariman, Surya Kant and V. Ramasubramanian, JJ has held that Section 87 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 must be struck down as manifestly arbitrary under Article 14. Section 87 as introduced by the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2019 states that\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":348488,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/05\/22\/indias-draft-arbitration-amendment-bill-yet-another-amendment-to-the-arbitration-act-over-legislation-or-keeping-pace-with-changes-a-bit-of-both\/","url_meta":{"origin":360591,"position":2},"title":"India’s Draft Arbitration Amendment Bill \u2014 Yet Another Amendment to the Arbitration Act? Over-Legislation or Keeping Pace with Changes? \u2014 A Bit of Both!","author":"Editor","date":"May 22, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"by Shalaka Patil* and Amaan Rahman**","rel":"","context":"In "Op Eds"","block_context":{"text":"Op Eds","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/op-ed\/legal-analysis\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"India's Draft Arbitration Amendment Bill","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/05\/shared-image-2025-05-21T194703.423.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/05\/shared-image-2025-05-21T194703.423.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/05\/shared-image-2025-05-21T194703.423.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/05\/shared-image-2025-05-21T194703.423.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":194071,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/03\/16\/arbitration-and-conciliation-amendment-act-2015-is-prospective-in-nature\/","url_meta":{"origin":360591,"position":3},"title":"Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 is prospective in nature","author":"Prachi Bhardwaj","date":"March 16, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court: In the case where the Bench of RF Nariman and Navin Sinha, JJ was deciding the question as to the nature of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015, it was held: \u201cthe Amendment Act is prospective in nature and will apply to those arbitral proceedings that are\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":245674,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/03\/16\/arbitration-and-conciliation-amendment-act-2021\/","url_meta":{"origin":360591,"position":4},"title":"Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2021","author":"Prachi Bhardwaj","date":"March 16, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"On 11th March, 2021, the Central Government has notified the \u2018The Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2021\u2019. The Amendment Act is deemed to have come into effect from 4th November, 2020. The Amendment Act seeks to repeal The Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Ordinance, 2020 and amend the Arbitration and Conciliation\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Legislation Updates"","block_context":{"text":"Legislation Updates","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/legislationupdates\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Parliament_Colour.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Parliament_Colour.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Parliament_Colour.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Parliament_Colour.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Parliament_Colour.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":291751,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/05\/10\/supreme-court-resolves-enigma-retrospective-applicability-of-arbitration-amendment-act-2015-legal-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":360591,"position":5},"title":"Notice invoking arbitration issued prior to 2015 Amendment but application filed post Amendment: SC resolves enigma around applicability of Arbitration Amendment Act 2015","author":"Prachi Bhardwaj","date":"May 10, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"Upholding the Telangana High Court judgment, the Supreme Court held that the law prevailing prior to the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 shall be applicable in a case where the notice invoking arbitration is issued prior to the Amendment Act, 2015.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"applicability of arbitration amendment act 2015","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/applicability-of-arbitration-amendment-act-2015.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/applicability-of-arbitration-amendment-act-2015.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/applicability-of-arbitration-amendment-act-2015.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/applicability-of-arbitration-amendment-act-2015.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/360591","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\/67011"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=360591"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/360591\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/360593"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=360591"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=360591"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=360591"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}