Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court's orders, holding that a court can entertain an application under Section 29A(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to extend the mandate of the arbitrator even after an award has been rendered beyond the statutory eighteen-month period -- The Court examined the legislative intent behind Section 29A and emphasized the court's role in balancing efficient dispute resolution through arbitration with maintaining procedural integrity -- The Court distinguished between termination of the arbitrator's mandate and the nullity of the award, holding that an award rendered after expiry of mandate is not automatically null and void -- The Court approved observations from Rohan Builders case and reversed the High Court's decision which had relied on Suryadev Alloys and Ayyasamy cases -- The matter was remanded to the High Court for fresh consideration of the application under Section 29A(5)
Headnote
The Supreme Court considered whether a court can entertain an application under Section 29A(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to extend the mandate of the arbitrator(s) even after an award has been rendered beyond the statutory eighteen-month period -- The Court examined the text and context of Section 29A, which was introduced to empower courts to extend arbitrators' mandates -- The Court held that the power and jurisdiction of the court are not impaired by the arbitrator rendering an award without a mandate, particularly when such award does not partake the character of a decree and is unenforceable under Section 36 -- The Court approved observations from Rohan Builders (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Berger Paints India Ltd. (2024 SCC Online SC 2494) that courts can entertain applications under Section 29A(5) and pass appropriate orders under Section 29A(4) for extension of mandate even after award is rendered -- The Court distinguished between termination of mandate and nullity of award, holding that an award rendered after expiry of mandate is not automatically null and void -- The Court emphasized the important role courts play in balancing twin interests: securing dispute resolution through arbitration and ensuring integrity in its conduct -- The Court reversed the High Court's decision which had dismissed the application under Section 29A as not maintainable and had allowed the Section 34 petition to set aside the award
Premium Content
The Headnote is only available to subscribed members.
Subscribe Now to access key legal points
Issue of Consideration: Whether a Court can entertain an application under Section 29A(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to extend the mandate of the arbitrator(s) for making the award even after an 'award' is rendered, though after the expiry of the statutory limit of eighteen-month period?
Premium Content
The Issue of Consideration is only available to subscribed members.
Subscribe Now to access critical case issues
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court's orders dated 24.01.2025 and 14.02.2025 -- The Court held that a court can entertain an application under Section 29A(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to extend the mandate of the arbitrator even after an award has been rendered beyond the statutory eighteen-month period -- The matter was remanded to the High Court for fresh consideration of the application under Section 29A(5)
