Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
RAVI NATH TILHARI, MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM
Chidepudi Bhanu Srivastava, S/o Ch. Sudhakar – Appellant
Versus
Kancharla Subrahmanyam, S/o Anjaneyulu – Respondent
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
(1) Extension of mandate of Arbitral Tribunal – Court has power and jurisdiction to extend period.(2) Efficiency in conduct of arbitral proceedings is integral to effectiveness of dispute resolution ....
(1) Arbitral award – Application for extension of time period for passing arbitral award under Section 29A(4) read with Section 29A(5) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is maintainable even a....
Extension of Sole Arbitrator's mandate under the Arbitration Act requires sufficient cause, unaffected by procedural misconduct by arbitrator, especially when delays arise from the respondent's actio....
The court can extend the mandate of arbitrators under Section 29A(5) after an award is rendered, even if done post statutory timeline, reinforcing the integrity of the arbitration process.
(1) Extension of mandate of Arbitrator(s) – Application under Section 29A(5) for extension of mandate of Arbitrator is maintainable even after expiry of time under Sections 29A(1) and (3) and even af....
The termination of the mandate of the arbitrator(s) is subject to the decision of the Court, which may be made either before or after the expiry of the specified period, allowing for flexibility in g....
The Court established the applicability of section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and affirmed its jurisdiction to extend the arbitral tribunal's mandat....
The court clarified that the power to extend the mandate of the arbitrator under Section 29A(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act can be exercised even after the expiry of the specified period,....
The court ruled that arbitration mandates may be extended due to administrative delays not attributable to the parties, affirming the need for the timely resolution of disputes while preventing preju....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
