JUDGMENT :

Ravi Nath Tilhari, J.

Heard Sri Venkateswarlu Gadipudi, learned counsel for the appellants and perused the material on record.

2. This appeal has been filed under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act,2015, challenging the order dated 25.07.2025 passed in C.A.O.P.No.5 of 2024 on the file of the Special Court for Trial and Disposal of Commercial Disputes, Vijayawada. (in short 'Special Court')

I. Facts :-

3. The appellants are the respondents in C.A.O.P. No.5 of 2024 (in short 'C.A.O.P') and the respondent herein is the petitioner in the said C.A.O.P., filed under Section 29-A(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short “the Act, 1996”), seeking extension of time for the arbitral proceedings before the Sole Arbitrator for a period of six months from 19.05.2024.

4. The parties shall be referred as in this appeal.

5. In the said C.A.O.P., the respondent filed I.A.No.242 of 2024 seeking amendment of the prayer, which was allowed, thereby modifying the prayer for extension of time up to 31.12.2025.

6. The appellants filed a counter affidavit opposing the said prayer in C.A.O.P.

7. The learned Special Court, after hearing both sides, framed the point for determination as follows:

“Whether this Court can extend the mandate of the learned Sole Arbitrator up to 31.12.2025 from 19.05.2024, as prayed for?”

8. The learned Special Court answered the point in the affirmative, holding that the extension of time could be granted even on an application filed after expiry of the period fixed for passing of the award. It was held that a sufficient cause was established for non-completion of the arbitral mandate within time. It accordingly extended the mandate of the Sole Arbitrator specified up to 31.12.2025 by order dated 25.07.2025, imposing cots on the respondent for delayed filing of the extension Petition.

9. The learned Special Court placed reliance in Rohan Builders (India) Private Limited v. Berger Paints India Limited, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2494, for the proposition that, an application under Section 29-A(4) of the Act,1996 can be filed even after expiry of the stipulated period.

10. Challenging the aforesaid order dated 25.07.205, the present appeal has been filed under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act,2015.

II. Submissions of the Appellants’ counsel :-

11. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the application for extension of time was not filed within the statutory period for the arbitral mandate and any application for condonation of delay was also not filed. He submits that the law laid down in Rohan Builders (supra) was therefore, not applicable. Once the mandate stood terminated, it could not be revived after the lapse of the statutory period.

12. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that the cause shown was not sufficient for extension of the mandate, and in any event, the period ought not to have been extended up to 31.12.2025.

13. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants and perused the material on record.

III. Points for determination :-

14. The points that arise for our determination are :

1. Whether the application for extension of the arbitral mandate can be entertained, after expiry of the mandate for the Arbitral Award ?

2. Whether the learned Special Judge, has rightly extended the period for arbitral mandate, and in another words, if there was sufficient case for such extension ?

IV. Analysis :-

POINT No.1:

15. Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,1996, reads as under :

“29A. Time limit for arbitral award.— 3 [(1)The award in matters other than international commercial arbitration shall be made by the arbitral tribunal within a period of twelve months from the date of completion of pleadings under sub-section (4) of section 23:

Provided that the award in the matter of international commercial arbitration may be made as expeditiously as possible and endeavor may be made to dispose of the matter within a period of twelve months from the date