Therefore, from 06.08.2023, the sole Arbitrator had become functus officio Therefore, there is no question of extending the mandate. He would further contend that even though for a period of a month, the applicant Company was under the preview of the NCLT, the same was dismissed as withdrawn by the NCLT on 21.09.2023 and therefore, there was no impediment in them to have approached this Court immediately thereafter. However, the application had been filed only in the month of March 2024 i.e. nearly after a period of four (4) months and no reasons have been assigned for the delay in approaching this Court. Hence, he would submit that this Court need not exercise it's jurisdiction under Section 29(A) of the Act for grant of extension of the mandate. He would submit that the Arbitration Proceedings were delayed only at the instances of the applicant and there were no delay on part of the respondent in participating in the Arbitration Proceedings. Hence, he would seek this Court not to grant any indulgence by extending the mandate. He would also draw the attention of this Court to the affidavit filed in support of these application wherein he would indicate that the applications were signed in the month of October 2023, but were presented before this Court in the month of March 2024 and this itself would show that the applicant is not interested in concluding the arbitration proceedings and is trying to drag on the proceedings. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
