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, provided sufficient grounds are made out for granting the extension.

ORDER :

1. By this petition filed under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the Petitioners are seeking extension of mandate of the learned Arbitrator. The Respondent has appeared through Counsel and the present petition is opposed on a point of law. It is contended that since the present petition was filed after the mandate of the learned Arbitrator had expired, as a matter of law, this Court under Section 29A(4) of the aforesaid Act, cannot entertain the present petition.

2. Before considering the rival submissions on the aforesaid point of law, it would be appropriate to briefly refer to the relevant facts. In the present case, the admitted position is that the pleadings were completed on 07th February, 2022 and accordingly, the 12 months period expired on 06th February, 2023. As per Section 29A(3) of the said Act, the parties by consent extended the mandate for a further period of 6 months, as a consequence of which, the mandate of the learned Arbitrator stood extended till 06th August, 2023.

3. It is also an admitted position that even after expiry of the mandate of the learned Arbitrator on 06th August, 2023, since the proceedings were at the stage of final hearing, the sessions for final hearing commenced from 11th September, 2023. The final hearing sessions were conducted on 11th September, 2023, 13th September, 2023, 29th September, 2023 and 12th October, 2023. When the proceedings were at the stage of the Petitioners (Original Claimants) arguing in rejoinder, it appears an objection was raised on behalf of the Respondent on the ground that the mandate of the learned Arbitrator had expired.

4. It is in this backdrop that the present petition came to be filed. It is also an admitted position that while the mandate of the learned Arbitrator expired on 06th August, 2023, the present petition came to be filed on 10th October, 2023, which was after the mandate had already expired.

5. Since the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent questioned the very maintainability of the petition and relied upon a judgment of the Calcutta High Court, as noted in the order dated 23rd October, 2023, this Court deems it appropriate to first consider the said objection. The learned Counsel for the Respondent placed reliance on judgment of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Rohan Builders (India) Private Limited Vs. Berger Paints India Limited (order dated 06th September, 2023 passed in A.P.. 328 of 2023). He fairly brought to the notice of this Court that the Supreme Court issued notice for final disposal in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 23320 of 2023, whereby the said judgment of the Calcutta High Court has been challenged. He further fairly brought to the notice of this Court that in a subsequent petition filed before the Supreme Court in the matter of Vrindavan Advisory Services LLP Vs. Deep Shambhulal Bhanushali (Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 24489 of 2023), on 06th November, 2023, while issuing notice in the said petition and tagging the same along with the earlier Special Leave Petition, pending before the Supreme Court, it was specifically directed that there shall be stay of the impugned judgment of the Calcutta High Court. Thus, it was brought to the notice of this Court that as on today the Calcutta High Court judgment has been stayed.

6. Nonetheless, the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent further relied upon a judgment of the Division Bench of the Patna High Court in the case of South Bihar Power Distribution Company Limited Vs. Bhagalpur Electricity Distribution Company Private Limited a Private Limited Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, 2023 SCC OnLine Pat 1658 particularly paragraph no. 88 thereof. He submits that the reasoning adopted by the Division Bench of the Patna High Court was similar to the one adopted by the Calcutta High Court in the aforementioned judgments. He submitted that the said interpretation and position of law may be considered by this Court whi