Analysing Jurisprudence On Extension Of Arbitrator's Mandate After Expiry Of Period U/S 29A Of A&C Act Before & After SC's Decision In Rohan Builders

Introduction Section 29A was introduced into the Arbitration Act in 2015 to provide a clear-cut timeline within which an arbitral tribunal has to render an award. In the case of South Bihar Power Distribution Company Limited v. Bhagalpur Electricity Distribution Company Private Limited a Private Limited Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, the Division Bench of the Patna High Court was of the view that even if the Court retains power to extend the mandate of the learned Arbitrator after expiry of the period so specified, an application or petition seeking such extension has to be made prior to expiry of the said extended period. Similarly, the Calcutta High Court followed the same path in Rohan Builders Ltd. v. Berger Paints India Ltd. wherein it was observed that the application under section 29A of the Act cannot be filed once the time period has expired. Had it been intended by the legislature to provide for a blanket prohibition on extension of time after the expiration of the period contemplated under Section 29A or Section 29A of the A&C Act of the A&C Act was filed prior to expiry of the said period), nothing would have been easier than to say so.” Considering contrary positions, the Bombay High Court in the case of Nikhil H. Malkan v. Standard Chartered Investment & Loans Ltd noted the language used in the section “either prior to or after the expiry of the period so specified” and observed that the provision does not limit the scope of the court just to those applications which are filed before the expiry of the mandate. Subsequently, the High Courts of Delhi and Kerala had also interpreted the provision to the effect that the application for seeking extension can be filed both before or after the expiry of the mandate.The Delhi High Court in Wadia Techno-Engineering Services Ltd. v. Director General of Married Accommodation Project observed that “The provision clearly provides that the Court may extend the period even after its expiry.