Partly allowed¶35

R.Vedagiri v. K.Rajakumari

Madras HC12 Sept 2025A/4037/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 29A Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996; extension of time for passing award; final extension of three months; no further extension; Madras High Court Original Side; A.No.4037 of 2025; ACP.No.6 of 2022; sole Arbitrator Mrs.R.Rathna Thara; M/s.Prashant Enterprises partners R.Vedagiri, K.Rajakumari, M.Kandasamy; Order XIV Rule 8 Madras High Court Original Side Rules; M/s.Ajay Protech Pvt. Ltd. (2024) SCC OnLine SC 3381; Rohan Builders (India) Pvt. Ltd. (2024) SCC OnLine SC 2494; facilitate effective dispute resolution; limited scope of Section 29A application.

What did the court decide?

Application disposed of with a final extension of three months for completion of the arbitration proceedings in ACP.No.6 of 2022 (six months having been sought); the Court declared that no further extension will be granted. ¶35

R.Vedagiri Vs K.Rajakumari — Arbitration | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶35

Issue for consideration

Whether the Court should grant a further extension of time under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for completion of the arbitration before the sole Arbitrator, notwithstanding the respondents' opposition.

¶27

Court's answer

In the considered view of this Court, the scope of an application under Section 29A of the Act is very limited.

¶28

Ratio / Principle

The consistent view of the Apex Court is that only in rare cases should extension of time under Section 29A be refused; normally the Court must ensure that time is extended so as to facilitate effective dispute resolution and not obstruct it.

¶33

Key takeaways

Time for completion of the arbitration proceedings was finally extended by three months, with a clear declaration that the proceedings must be completed within that period and that no further extension of time will be granted.ratio¶34

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (N. Anand Venkatesh, J.) disposed of A.No.4037 of 2025, filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of the Madras High Court Original Side Rules read with Section 29A(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 by the 3rd partner of M/s.Prashant Enterprises seeking a further six-month extension for the learned sole Arbitrator Mrs.R.Rathna Thara, Advocate, to pass the award in ACP.No.6 of 2022. Relying on M/s.Ajay Protech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. General Manager & Another, (2024) SCC OnLine SC 3381, and Rohan Builders (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Berger Paints India Ltd., (2024) SCC OnLine SC 2494, the Court held that the scope of a Section 29A application is very limited, that the Court must only facilitate and not obstruct effective dispute resolution, and that, per the consistent view of the Apex Court, extension should be refused only in rare cases. Recording the respondents' objections (repeated interlocutory applications and non-cooperation despite earlier extensions, to which they had consented), the Court finally extended time by three months and declared that the proceedings must be completed within that period and that no further extension would be granted.

¶1

A.No.4037 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 12.09.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH

¶6

A.No.4037 of 2025

¶7

R.Vedagiri 3^rd Partner M/s.Prashant Enterprises No.3&4, First Floor Mogappair Road, Padi Chennai 600 050

¶8

.. Applicant

¶9

Vs.

¶10

1.K.Rajakumari 1^st Partner M/s.Prashant Enterprises No.3&4, First Floor Mogappair Road, Padi Chennai 600 050

¶11

2.M.Kandasamy 2^nd Partner M/s.Prashant Enterprises No.3&4, First Floor Mogappair Road, Padi Chennai 600 050 .. Respondents

¶12

Application filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of the Madras High Court Original Side Rules read with Section 29A(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to extend the time for passing an Award by the learned sole Arbitrator Mrs.R.Rathna Thara, Advocate in ACP.No.6 of 2022 by another six months.

¶13

1/5

¶14

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

¶15

A.No.4037 of 2025

¶16

For applicant : Mr.Sharukumar S.I For respondents : Mr.S.Sathiaseelan

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

This application has been filed under Section 29A of the Arbitration and

¶19

Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking for extension of time to complete the arbitration proceedings.

¶20

Heard both sides.

¶21

Learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the counter affidavit filed by the respondents and submitted that the learned Arbitrator was appointed by this Court by an order dated 05.04.2022. Thereafter, the applicant has been filing repeated interlocutory applications and in spite of extension of time that was granted during earlier occasions, the applicant is not co-operating for the completion of the arbitration proceedings.

¶22

Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that during earlier

¶23

occasions, the respondents have given consent for the extension of time with the

¶24

2/5

¶25

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

¶26

A.No.4037 of 2025

¶27

fond expectation that the proceedings will be completed within the extended time and also consented for extension of time by the Court. However, repeated interlocutory applications have been filed and the proceedings are dragged on. Therefore, the learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the grant of any further extension of time in this case.

¶28

In the considered view of this Court, the scope of an application under Section 29A of the Act is very limited. The Apex Court, in the case of M/s.Ajay Protech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. General Manager & Another reported in (2024) SCC OnLine SC 3381 , has held that the Court must only facilitate an effective dispute resolution and should not obstruct it.

¶29

The liberal interpretation given to Section 29A application was further reiterated in the case of Rohan Builders (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Berger Paints India Ltd. reported in (2024) SCC OnLine SC 2494, wherein, the Apex Court went to the extent of saying that such an application is maintainable, even after the prescribed period is over. Therefore, the consistent view of the Apex Court is that only in rare cases, such extension of time should not be granted and normally, the

¶30

3/5

¶31

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

¶32

A.No.4037 of 2025

¶33

Court must ensure that the time is extended for facilitating the effective dispute resolution.

¶34

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and recording the objections made by the learned counsel for the respondents, this Court is inclined to finally extend the time for a period of three months and accordingly, time is extended finally by three months. It is made clear that the proceedings must be completed within this period and no further extension of time will be granted by this Court.

¶35

This application is disposed of in the above terms.

12.09.2025

gya

4/5

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

¶40

A.No.4037 of 2025