US Constitution Trumps Presidential Tariff Powers
28 Feb 2026
Non-Compliance with Court Summons Amounts to Contempt: Allahabad HC Issues Warrant Against HDFC Life Branch Head in Cheating Bail Case
02 Mar 2026
Bank Can Adjust OTS Deposit on Borrower Default, No Cheating u/s 420 IPC: Delhi High Court
02 Mar 2026
Divij Kumar Quits CMS INDUSLAW for Independent Practice
03 Mar 2026
Global Lawyers Debate AI Liability in Autonomous Vehicles
03 Mar 2026
CCPA Fines Startup ₹8 Lakh for False Child Growth Claims
05 Mar 2026
Madras High Court Scoffs at Police Custody Injury Claim
05 Mar 2026
India's Criminal Investigations Face Systemic Conviction Crisis
05 Mar 2026
Kerala HC Slams TDB Financial Discipline in Ayyappa Conclave, Orders Auditor Report on Past Anomalies: High Court of Kerala
06 Mar 2026
SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA
Ashok Kumar Gupta – Appellant
Versus
M. D. Creations – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
JUDGMENT :
Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.
1. The sole issue which has fallen for consideration in the present case is brief, but having huge repercussions-whether the court can extend the mandate of an arbitrator after its termination if the application under Section 29-A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is filed post-termination.
2. Learned Counsel for the respondents places reliance on a co-ordinate Bench Judgment of this Court in Rohan Builders (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. Berger Paints India Limited, reported at (2023) SCC OnLine Cal 2645 for the proposition that if an application is filed for extension after termination of the mandate, such mandate cannot be extended under section 29-A.
3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner opposes such contention and places reliance on an order dated November 6, 2023, passed by the Supreme Court in a Special Leave Petition, bearing SLP No.24489 of 2023, passed in a challenge against an order taking the same view as Rohan Builders (supra), in the matter of Vrindavan Advisory Services LLP vs. Deep Shambhulal Bhanushali, where the Supre
The court's power to extend an arbitrator's mandate under Section 29-A is not limited by the timing of the application, allowing for extensions even after termination.
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....
(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....
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,....
(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 resolut....
The requirement of consent of the parties for extension of mandate under Section 29A(3) does not apply to Section 29A(4) and (5). The power to extend the period specified in Section 29A(1) or the ext....
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 main legal point established in the judgment is that the petitioner's recourse for appointment of a substitute arbitrator lies through Section 15 of The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, on....
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.