Allowed¶29

Union of India, v. Rpn Engineers Chennai Pvt.Ltd.

Madras HC9 Jan 2025A/158/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Extension of mandate of Arbitral Tribunal; Section 29A(4) Arbitration and Conciliation Act; A.Nos.158 & 160 of 2025; Madras High Court; Justice P.B. Balaji; 09-01-2025; Union of India Southern Railway vs RPN Engineers Chennai Pvt. Ltd.; arbitrator's own request for 15 days extension (Document No.AP-19 dated 17.12.2024); abundant caution; ill-health of arbitrator's close relative; mandate extended up to 31.01.2025; three-month extension refused.

What did the court decide?

Mandate of the Arbitrator extended up to 31.01.2025; both applications (A.Nos.158 and 160 of 2025) ordered accordingly. ¶29

Union of India, Vs Rpn Engineers Chennai Pvt.Ltd. — Arbitration | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Mandate of the Arbitrator extended up to 31.01.2025; both applications (A.Nos.158 and 160 of 2025) ordered accordingly.

¶29

Issue for consideration

Whether the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal should be extended, and for what period - the applicant in A.No.158 of 2025 (Union of India, respondent before the Arbitral Tribunal) sought extension by three months from 03.01.2025, while the applicant in A.No.160 of 2025 (RPN Engineers, the claimant before the Arbitral Tribunal) sought extension by 15 days.

¶21

Court's answer

In view of the request of the Arbitrator himself seeking extension of time by only 15 days, the Court found no reason to extend the mandate by three months as sought in A.No.158 of 2025.

¶28

Ratio / Principle

Considering the facts and circumstances, the mandate of the Arbitrator is extended up to 31.01.2025, and both applications are ordered accordingly.

¶29

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (P.B. Balaji, J.), 09-01-2025, A.Nos.158 & 160 of 2025: Competing applications under Section 29A(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act for extension of the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal in a dispute between Union of India (Southern Railway) and RPN Engineers Chennai Pvt. Ltd. The Union of India, respondent before the Tribunal, sought a three-month extension from 03.01.2025, invoking the Arbitrator's recording that time might need extension 'by way of abundant caution' owing to the ill-health of a close relative of the Arbitrator. RPN Engineers, the claimant, sought only 15 days, relying on point No.4 of Document No.AP-19 dated 17.12.2024, wherein the Arbitrator himself stated that the Tribunal had to seek extension up to 18.01.2025 and, at point No.5, requested both parties to approach the jurisdictional Court. Holding that, in view of the Arbitrator's own request for only 15 days, there was no reason to extend the mandate by three months, the Court extended the mandate of the Arbitrator up to 31.01.2025 and ordered both applications accordingly.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 09-01-2025 CORAM

¶2

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE P.B. BALAJI

¶3

A Nos. 158 & 160 of 2025

¶4

A No. 158 of 2025:

¶5

Union of India, The General Manager, Southern Railway, Head Quarters Office, Park Town, Chennai - 600003. and another

¶6

Applicant(s)

¶7

¶8

RPN Engineers Chennai Pvt.Ltd. M-60,9th Street, Anna Nagar East, Chennai600102.

¶9

Respondent(s)

¶10

For Applicant(s): M/s.MEERA GNANASEKAR

¶11

A No. 160 of 2025:

¶12

RPN Engineers Chennai Pvt.Ltd. M-60,9th Street, Anna Nagar East, Chennai600102.

¶13

Applicant(s)

¶14

¶15

Union of India, The General Manager, Southern Railway, Head Quarters Office, Park Town, Chennai - 600003. and another

¶16

Respondent(s)

¶17

For Applicant(s): M/s.K.Aparna Devi

¶18

1/3

¶19

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The application in A.No.158 of 2025 has been filed by the respondent before the Arbitral Tribunal, seeking extension of the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal by three months from 03.01.2025. However, the claimant before the Arbitral Tribunal has come up with a separate application in A.No.160 of 2025, seeking extension of the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal by a mere 15 days.

¶22

2.Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶23

3.The learned counsel for the applicant in A.No.158 of 2025 would invite my attention to the Arbitrator's proceedings, wherein he has recorded that by way of abundant caution alone, the time may have to be extended considering the ill-health of a close relative of the Arbitrator. However, the learned counsel for the applicant in A.No.160 of 2025 would invite my attention to point No.4 of the Document No.AP-19 dated 17.12.2024 where the Arbitrator himself states that as a measure of abundant caution it has become incumbent upon the Arbitral Tribunal to seek extension of time by 15 days i.e., up to 18.01.2025, in terms of Section 29A(4) of the Arbitation and Conciliation Act.

¶24

4.In fact, at point No.5, the Arbitrator has requested both the parties to approach the concerned jurisdictional Court to grant the said 15 days extension required by the Arbitral Tribunal.

¶25

5.In view of the request of the Arbitrator himself seeking extension of

¶26

2/3

¶27

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶28

time by only 15 days, I do not find any reason for extending the mandate by three months as required in A.No.158 of 2025.

¶29

6.Considering the facts and circumstances, the mandate of the Arbitrator is extended up to 31.01.2025.

¶30

7.These applications are ordered accordingly.