This order grants an extension of six months for the mandate of an arbitral tribunal whose mandate had already expired, relying on the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the precedent set by Tata Sons.
Mandate of the learned Arbitral Tribunal shall stand extended by a period of six months from today.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~48
RAVINDER KUMAR & ANR. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Prateek Choudhary, Mr. Ravinder Kumar, Advs.
versus
RAJ SINGH & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Karan Chhibber, Adv.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
%
O R D E R (ORAL) 28.08.2024
1. This is an application under Section 29A(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 19961 for extension of the mandate of the learned Arbitral Tribunal, who was in seisin of the dispute between the parties and whose mandate is stated to have expired on 12 June 2020.
2. The present petition has been filed on 5 February 2024.
3. Mr. Choudhary, learned Counsel for the petitioner, explains the delay by submitting that persons in the family of the petitioner and the respondent were suffering from COVID and one of them expired.
4. Besides, in August 2023, the petitioner filed an application under Section 29A of the 1996 Act before the learned District Judge
1 “the 1996 Act” hereinafter Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By: AJIT KUMAR O.M.P. (MISC.) 5/2024 Signing Da te:2 9.08.2024 17:34:18
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed Page 1 of 4 By:CHANDRASHEKHARANHARI SHANKAR Signing Date: 29.0 8.2024 17:33:37
(Commercial), Dwarka2 who, by order dated 19 August 2023, rejected the application on the ground that he had no jurisdiction to deal with it.
5. The petitioner has, thereafter, approached this Court.
6. Though the delay is considerable, it appears from the record that the learned arbitrator even after his mandate had expired, was issuing notice to the parties after April 2022.
7. As such, the learned arbitrator clearly was continuing to proceed with the matter, despite the termination of his mandate.
8. The arbitrator had not, therefore, relinquished hold of the case.
9. Learned Counsel for the respondent submits that the issue of whether the mandate of the learned Arbitral Tribunal can be extended under Section 29A after it had expired stands referred to the Supreme Court and orders stand reserved by the Supreme Court on 30 July 2024.
10. Accordingly, he prays that this matter may be adjourned.
11. Learned Counsel is unable, however, to provide, to the Court, the order whereby the Supreme Court has reserved orders, or enlighten the Court regarding the facts of the case before the Supreme Court.
2 “the learned Commercial Court” hereinafter Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By: AJIT KUMAR O.M.P. (MISC.) 5/2024 Signing Da te:2 9.08.2024 17:34:18
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Page 2 of 4 By:CHANDRASHEKHARANHARI SHANKAR Signing Date: 29.0 8.2024 17:33:37
12. The Supreme Court has itself held, in Tata Sons Pvt Ltd v Siva Industries & Holdings Ltd3 that the mandate of the learned Arbitral Tribunal can be extended under Section 29A even after the mandate has expired:
(Italics in original; underscoring supplied)
13. Section 29A(4) itself says that “if the award is not made within the period specified in sub-section (1) or the extended period specified under sub-section (3), the mandate of the arbitrator(s) shall terminate unless the court has, either prior to or after the expiry of the period so specified, extended the period”.
14. There is, therefore, both statutory and precedential sanction for the Court to extend the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal even after the mandate has expired. Needless to say, the Court has to be satisfied that a case for extension exists, and, in rare cases and for good reason, the Court may reject the request.
15. This Court has, in a multitude of cases, extended the mandate of the learned Arbitral Tribunal even after it has expired. To the
Signature Not Verified 3 (2023) 5 SCC 421
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Page 3 of 4 By:CHANDRASHEKHARANHARI SHANKAR Signing Date: 29.0 8.2024 17:33:37
Digitally Signed By: AJIT KUMAR O.M.P. (MISC.) 5/2024 Signing Da te:2 9.08.2024 17:34:18
knowledge of this Court, none of these decisions have been reversed on the ground that the Court could not have done so.
16. Learned counsel for the respondent has no other objection to the prayer for extension of the mandate of the learned arbitrator.
17. In the present case, given the applicable facts, I am convinced that, to bring the dispute between the parties to a quietus, the mandate of the learned Arbitrator deserves to be extended.
18. In that view of the matter, the mandate of the learned Arbitral Tribunal shall stand extended by a period of six months from today.
19. The petition stands allowed in the aforesaid terms.
C. HARI SHANKAR, J
AUGUST 28, 2024/ dsn
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed Page 4 of 4 By:CHANDRASHEKHARANHARI SHANKAR Signing Date: 29.0 8.2024 17:33:37
Digitally Signed By: AJIT KUMAR O.M.P. (MISC.) 5/2024 Signing Da te:2 9.08.2024 17:34:18
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the mandate of an arbitral tribunal can be extended under Section 29A(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 after it has expired.
Whether the delay in filing the application for extension, justified by COVID-19 related family issues, warrants grant of extension.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Tata Sons Pvt Ltd v Siva Industries & Holdings LtdExplained¶28
Tata Sons Pvt Ltd v Siva Industries & Holdings Ltd (2023) 5 SCC 421 · Who else cites this
Tata Sons Pvt Ltd v Siva Industries & Holdings LtdExplained¶31
Tata Sons Pvt Ltd v Siva Industries & Holdings Ltd
2 provisions across 1 enactments
RAVINDER KUMAR
RAJ SINGH
C. HARI SHANKAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
