IMPORTANT POINT
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 mandate under section 29A(4) and (5).

JUDGMENT :

Moushumi Bhattacharya, J.

1. This is a composite application for extension of the mandate of the arbitral tribunal under section 29A (4) and (5) of The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and for exclusion of the time period from 14.07.2023 to 10.01.2024 for the purpose of determining whether the application has been made within the prescribed period under the 1996 Act.

2. The significance of these dates would be clear from the facts narrated after this. The parties have not disputed the dates.

3. The petitioner is the claimant in the arbitration. The mandate of the tribunal was extended by the consent of parties under section 29A(3) for six months till 14.07.2023. The order recording the consent given by the respondent under section 29A(3) is part of records. The order passed by the arbitral tribunal on 16.01.2023 records the respondent’s consent to extension of the mandate under section 29A(3) of the Act. The next order of the arbitral tribunal dated 1.05.2023 records the stand taken by the parties in the matter of filing an application before the appropriate forum for extension of the mandate.

4. The petitioner made an application before the Ld. District Judge, Asansol for extension of the mandate on 14.07.2023 pursuant to the direction dated 01.05.2023. The Ld. District Judge, Asansol, transferred the case to the Ld. Additional District Judge by an order dated 18.11.2023. The matter was thereafter transferred to the Ld. Judge, Commercial Court at Asansol by an order dated 14.12.2023. The Ld. Commercial Court renumbered the case on 15.12.2023 and finally rejected the application as non-maintainable by an order dated 09.01.2024.

5. The order dated 09.01.2024 was uploaded on the Court’s website on 10.01.2024 and the certified copy of the order was made available on 11.01.2024. The present application was filed before this Court on 11.01.2024. The petitioner however cured a defect in one of the annexures (being illegible) on 15.01.2024. The application was finally filed on 15.01.2024.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relies on section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and argues that the delay in filing the petition should be condoned under section 5 of the said Act. Counsel urges that the mandate continued from 14.07.2023 to 10.01.2024 and that delay, if any, is also condonable under sections 5 and 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent argues that the mandate first terminated on 14.07.2023 and thereafter on 9.01.2024 i.e. after the extension given under section 29A(3) of the 1996 Act and the order passed by the Asansol Commercial Court rejecting the petitioner’s application for extension of the mandate, respectively. Counsel submits that the Court cannot extend the mandate after 09.01.2024.

8. Counsel makes an alternative argument of the Calcutta High Court lacking jurisdiction for entertaining the present application. Counsel relies on the definition of “Court” under section 2(1)(e) of the 1996 Act and also says that the Calcutta High Court cannot re-appoint the same arbitrator post-termination but can only “substitute” the arbitrator.

9. The mandate of the arbitral tribunal under section 29A(1) of The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 starts from the date of completion of the pleadings and continues for 12 months from that date for non-international commercial arbitrations. The mandate continues for a second run under section 29A(3) where the parties consent to extending the period for making of the award for a further period of 6 months from the end of the first window of 12 months under section 29A(1). Sections 29A(4) and (5) contemplate a third extension of the mandate subject to an application made by one of the parties to the Court and the Court extending the mandate for sufficient cause and on terms imposed by the Court. The second proviso to section 29A(4) envisages an automatic extension of the mandate where the parties have applied to the Court under se