Tribunal. The learned Commercial Court, by a reasonedorderallowed the said petition, rejecting contentions made of the appellant. Hence the present appeal. 6. Heard the learned Senor Counsel for the appellant,whodid not dispute the legal position in Rohan Builders (India) Pvt. Ltd., v Berger Paints India Ltd.^ Also heard the learned counsel for respondent No.1, who made submissions with reference to the said decision and that the delay in conclusion of the proceedings is bona fide and is not attributable to any of the parties or the learned Arbitrator. The parties and the learned Arbitrator have tried to conclude the proceedings in time, that if the proceedings are terminated due to non-extension of time, the arbitration agreement would be frustrated and the 1 St respondent will suffer serious prejudice and circumstances, the application seeking extension of time is maintainable and rightly allowed by the Commercial Court with cogent reasons, the learned counsel adds. 7. Considered the submissions made and perused the materialon record. Section 29-A of the Act deals with “Time limit for arbitral award”. A perusal of the Section would dearly indicate the time limits prescribed for completion of the arbitral proceedings and provisionsforextensionof time, who can extend such time, under what circumstances and
