Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mrs. V Mohana, Sr. Adv.(arguing counsel) Mr. B Ragunath, Adv. Mr. Pranav V Shankar, Adv. Mrs. N C Kavitha, Adv. Mrs. Nimisha Thomas, Adv. Mr. Vijay Kumar, AOR Ms. Runjhun Garg, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. M. Vijayan, Adv.(arguing counsel) Mr. M. Harish Kumar, Adv. Mr. P. S. Sudheer, AOR Mr. Rishi Maheshwari, Adv. Ms. Anne Mathew, Adv. Mr. Bharat Sood, Adv. Mr. Jai Govind M J, Adv. Mr. Jashan Vir Singh, Adv.

The grounds of this judgment are based on the following key legal principles and interpretations:

1. The maintainability of applications under Section 29A(5) for extending the mandate of an arbitrator even after the expiry of the statutory time limits specified in Sections 29A(1) and (3), and even after the rendering of an award during that period. The court clarified that such awards are considered ineffective and unenforceable, but the court's power to consider extension remains intact, and the arbitrator's act of passing an award post-mandate does not impair the court's jurisdiction [p_108].

2. The court emphasized that the power of the court to extend the mandate of arbitrators is not limited by the fact that an award has already been passed after the expiry of the arbitrator's mandate. The court can, on sufficient cause, extend the mandate and facilitate the continuation and conclusion of arbitral proceedings from the point where the mandate expired [p_108].

3. The judgment underscores that the arbitral process must be conducted efficiently and that the legislative intent behind the provisions is to prevent delays and ensure that arbitration proceedings are completed within a reasonable timeframe, with judicial oversight available to prevent indiscipline or undue delay [p_106].

4. The court clarified that the extension of time and substitution of arbitrators are discretionary powers vested in the court, which must be exercised with caution and circumspection, and that the proceedings can be continued seamlessly upon such extension or substitution [p_96][p_104].

5. The interpretation of the statutory provisions indicates that the absence of a strict bar on applications for extension after an award is passed supports the view that the arbitration process should be preserved and advanced, even in cases of delay or delay-related issues, to uphold the integrity and purpose of arbitration as a dispute resolution mechanism [p_106].

6. The court also highlighted that the expression "terminate" in the relevant provisions is transitory and conditional, and does not imply a final or absolute end to proceedings if an application for extension is pending or filed, reinforcing the principle that arbitration should be continued to its logical conclusion [p_95].

In essence, the grounds of the judgment rest on the interpretation that the court has the inherent authority and discretion to extend the mandate of arbitrators after the expiry of the statutory period, even if an award has been rendered, provided there is sufficient cause, to uphold the efficacy and purpose of arbitration proceedings.