Courts Can Extend Arbitrator’s Mandate Even After Late Award: Supreme Court Clarifies Section 29A Arbitration Act
Award passed after statutory deadline isn’t automatically fatal, Section 29A power survives; focus is on saving arbitration, not killing it on technicality
The Supreme Court in a significant judgment on arbitration timelines, has held that courts can extend an arbitrator’s mandate even after an award has been delivered beyond the statutory time limit, clarifying the scope of Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the Act).
Further referring to the Law Commission reports and international practice, the Court said that strict timelines should not become weapons to frustrate arbitration. Judicial intervention under Section 29A is meant to rescue and regulate proceedings, not terminate them mechanically.
A bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar in the judgment observed, “…we hold that an application under Section 29A(5) for extension of the mandate of the arbitrator is maintainable even after the expiry of the time under Sections 29A(1) and (3) and even after rendering of an award during that time. Such an award is ineffective and unenforceable. But the power of the court to consider extension is not impaired by such an indiscretion of the arbitrator. While considering the application, the Court will examine if there is sufficient cause for extending the mandate, and in the process, it may impose such terms and conditions as the situation demands…”.
“…The Court will also take into account other factors such as reduction of the fee of the arbitrator under proviso to Section 29A(4) and also impose costs on parties if the fact situation so demands. Substitution is an option for the Court as the provision itself says, ‘it shall be open for the Court to substitute’, and it will be exercised carefully. If the mandate is extended, the arbitral tribunal will pick up the thread from where it was left, and seamlessly continue the proceeding from the stage at which the mandate had expired, and conclude within the time granted”, the bench further observed.
Senior Advocate V Mohana appeared for the appellant and Advocate M. Vijayan appeared for the respondent.
In the pertinent matter, the dispute arose from three agreements to sell between the parties. On disputes, the High Court appointed a sole arbitrator in the year 19-04-2022. Pleadings concluded on 20-08-2022, triggering the 12-month clock under Section 29A of the Act. With party consent, time was extended by another six months, taking the deadline to 20-02-2024.
Thereafter pursuant to the arguments, the matter was reserved for award, but due to the settlement discussion could not fructify, it repeatedly led to adjournments. Though discussions continued until March 2024, and even resulted in a tripartite agreement that was never placed before the arbitrator, the arbitrator then ultimately passed the award on 11-05-2024, well after the mandate had expired.
Now, the respondent challenged the award under Section 34 of the Act, arguing that the tribunal’s mandate had lapsed. Meanwhile, the appellant sought post-facto extension of the mandate under Section 29A of the Act.
Thereafter, the Madras High Court refused, holding that once an award is made after expiry of time, it is a nullity and the court cannot revive the mandate.
Accordingly, the bench noted that the arbitrator’s unilateral act of delivering a time-barred award cannot denude the court’s jurisdiction; “Termination” of mandate under Section 29A(4) is not absolute; it is conditional and subject to the court’s supervisory power.
The Bench stressed that the Parliament’s intent behind Section 29A was to discipline timelines, not to let entire arbitrations collapse after years of evidence and hearings merely due to delay. The provision equips courts with a toolkit of fee reduction, costs, conditions, even substitution of arbitrators to balance efficiency with fairness.
The Supreme Court, thus, while allowing the appeal, restored the Section 29A application before the High Court, directing it to consider extension on merits.
Cause Title: C. Velusamy v. K Indhera [Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 112]
Appearances:
Appellant: V Mohana, Sr. Adv., B Ragunath, Pranav V Shankar, N C Kavitha, Nimisha Thomas, Vijay Kumar, AOR Runjhun Garg, Advocates.
Respondent: M. Vijayan, M. Harish Kumar, P. S. Sudheer, AOR, Rishi Maheshwari, Anne Mathew, Bharat Sood, Jai Govind M J, Jashan Vir Singh, Advocates.
udgment