The court emphasized that under Section 29-A of the Act, an extension of the arbitral tribunal's mandate is justified where undue delay is not established.

JUDGMENT :

SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, J

Context and Background:

1. These Petitions are essentially applications under Section 29-A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“the Act”) seeking an extension of mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal, which is said to have expired on March 1, 2024. The extension sought is for until December 31, 2026.

2. It would be important to record some background to the nature of the multiple references to arbitration that form subject matter of these Petitions, since the factual matrix is unique.

3. The parties have executed a contract dated November 24, 2004 (“Contract”) governing the design and construction of a special rail bridge across the river Chenab on the Katra-Laole Section of the Udhampur-Srinagar-Baramulla Rail Link Project. The Contract was governed by the standard terms and conditions of the Northern Railways. However, given the peculiar nature and complexity of the Contract and the experience with the nature of disputes between them, the parties specifically executed an arbitration agreement dated February 28, 2012 (“Arbitration Agreement”) by which a three-member ‘Standing Arbitral Tribunal’ (“SAT”) was constituted.

4. Under the Arbitration Agreement, disputes and differences between the parties under the Contract were to be adjudicated by the SAT. It was agreed that claims would be raised on a half-yearly basis and these could be considered by the SAT from time to time. The same body having jurisdiction over all claims, all of which form part of the same project, the SAT was meant to conduct proceedings across all claims relating to all disputes under the Contract.

5. The SAT’s composition was significantly under the influence, if not control of the Respondent, Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd. (“Konkan Railway”), which had to present a curated list of names of arbitrators, Page 3 of 20 essentially former railwaymen. From the panel of names, the Petitioner, a joint venture named Chenab Bridge Project Undertaking (“Chenab”) had to pick two names, from which one name would be picked by Konkan Railway as Chenab’s nominee arbitrator. The Managing Director of Konkan Railway would pick Konkan Railway’s nominee arbitrator and the Presiding Arbitrator.

6. The SAT was initially constituted but the Presiding Arbitrator was not able to take up the proceedings. Thereafter, on Chenab’s application under Section 11 of the Act, the High Court appointed the Presiding Arbitrator. On a challenge by Konkan Railway, the Supreme Court, by consent of the parties, appointed Justice (Retd.) R.V. Raveendran, a former judge of the Supreme Court as the Presiding Arbitrator, with the two members remaining the same (“Raveendran SAT”) on September 23, 2013. The Raveendran SAT was to adjudicate all claims made until then. Meanwhile, Konkan Railway had appointed one Mr. Anirudh Jain as the Presiding Arbitrator with the same two arbitrators (“Jain SAT”). Chenab raised claims from time to time. In all there are 24 half-yearly claims submitted to the SAT. The Supreme Court clarified that the half-yearly claims no. 1 to 3 raised until then would be dealt with by the Raveendran SAT while all other claims would go to the Jain SAT.

7. The Jain SAT fixed timelines for consideration of claims no. 4 to 9. Thereafter, half-yearly claims no. 10 to 15 were raised. While there is a total of 24 half-yearly claims to be adjudicated, each of these half-yearly claims, comprises multiple sub-heads of claims.

8. Although the framework for creating the SAT appears to have been intended to create a stable and continuous dispute resolu