Application under Section 29A(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, for extending the mandate of an arbitral tribunal, can be entertained after the mandate has expired. The Supreme Court held that such applications are permissible even post-expiry of the tribunal's mandate, provided there is "sufficient cause" for the extension. The court extended the time for making the arbitral award until December 31, 2024, emphasizing the pandemic's impact and the parties' mutual agreement to extend the timeline.

1. Introduction

• (Para 1-2):
  The central issue was whether the appellant's application under Section 29A(4) for extending the mandate of the arbitral tribunal should have been allowed. The Court held that it had the jurisdiction and sufficient cause existed for the extension.

2. Case Background

• (Para 3):
  The appellant entered into a works contract with respondent no. 1. Disputes led to arbitration initiated in 2018, and the tribunal was constituted by a High Court order in February 2019.
• (Para 3.1):
  Pleadings were completed by October 9, 2019. The statutory 12-month period under Section 29A(1) commenced from this date, with mutual extension under Section 29A(3) until April 9, 2021.
• (Para 3.2):
  Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Supreme Court excluded the period between March 15, 2020, and February 28, 2022, from limitation calculations.
• (Para 3.3):
  The arbitration resumed in 2022 and concluded in May 2023. Subsequently, the appellant applied for an extension of time in August 2023.

3. High Court Decision

• (Para 4):
  The High Court dismissed the application, citing a delay of over two years and noting that the tribunal's mandate terminated on April 9, 2021.

4. Issues for Consideration

• (Para 6):
  (i) Whether the application under Section 29A(4) can be filed after the expiry of the tribunal’s mandate.
  (ii) Whether the facts warrant an extension in the present case.

5. Legal Analysis

• (Para 7-10):
  The Supreme Court interpreted Section 29A(4) and relied on Rohan Builders v. Berger Paints India Ltd. to hold that courts can extend the tribunal’s mandate even post-expiry of statutory periods.
• (Para 11-15):
  The concept of "sufficient cause" under Section 29A(5) was analyzed. The Court held that the pandemic, procedural delays, and the parties' mutual agreement constituted sufficient cause for extension.

6. Decision

• (Para 18):
  The Court set aside the High Court's judgment and extended the mandate of the arbitral tribunal until December 31, 2024.

Statutory Provisions Discussed:

1. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996:

   • Section 29A(1): Timeline for completing arbitration.
   • Section 29A(3): Mutual extension by parties for six months.
   • Section 29A(4): Court's power to extend mandate before or after expiry.
   • Section 29A(5): Extension for sufficient cause.

2. Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation: Exclusion of limitation periods during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Ratio Decidendi:

1. Section 29A(4) explicitly empowers courts to extend an arbitral tribunal's mandate even after the statutory and extendable periods have expired.
2. "Sufficient cause" under Section 29A(5) includes circumstances like the COVID-19 pandemic and procedural delays caused by uncontrollable factors.
3. Party autonomy and judicial discretion are critical in ensuring efficient arbitration while accommodating unforeseen disruptions.

Subjects:

Arbitration, Mandate Extension, COVID-19 Impact, Judicial Discretion
Arbitration Act, Mandate Extension, Section 29A, COVID-19 Limitation, Sufficient Cause