Section 29A Of Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996: Complications More Than Cure
Live LawThis article is an attempt to highlight the complexities involved under Section 29A of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996. Ltd. v. General Manager & Anr., reiterated the principle that the extension of mandate under Section 29A shall be only for a “sufficient cause”. In Larsen and Toubro Ltd. v. IIC Limited and Anr., it is held by the Delhi High Court that the Court is empowered under Section 29A to extend the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal for sufficient cause, even in the absence of consent of any of the parties to the arbitration. The Court clarified that the lack of consent from one party in an application under Section 29A cannot be a reason to deny the extension of the Arbitral Tribunal's mandate. Situation 3 : Irrespective of either party wanting an extension, the Court decides not to grant any further extension As mentioned above, the language of Section 29A suggests that only in cases where the Court is convinced that there is absence of “sufficient cause” to explain the undue delay that has been caused in passing the award, the Court can exercise its powers under sub-section and appoint a Substitute Arbitrator.