The Court may extend the mandate of an arbitral tribunal even without consent from all parties if justified by sufficient cause, emphasizing the importance of continuity in arbitration proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. These four petitions raise an important issue concerning the interpretation of Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter ‘1996 Act’). The parties in all the four petitions are set out in the following table:

The facts in each of the four petitions are as under:

O.M.P.(MISC.) (COMM.) 426/2023

3. The Petitioner- Larsen & Toubro Ltd. (hereinafter, L&T) was awarded a Letter of Intent (hereinafter, ‘LoI’) dated 5th October, 2010 in respect of the Thermal Power Plant located at Sinnar, Nasik, Maharashtra, India (hereinafter, ‘Nashik Project’). The Letter of Award (hereinafter, ‘LoA’) is dated 19th October, 2010 with respect to the said Nashik Project. Further, in pursuance of LoI and LoA, two contracts were entered into between parties, i.e. a Supply Contract dated 18th February, 2011 and a Service Contract dated 18th February, 2011.

4. In the present petition, the Respondent No. 1 is M/s. IIC Limited (hereinafter, ‘IICL’), and Respondent No. 2 is M/s. Rattan India Power Limited (hereinafter, ‘RPL’). As per the petition, in 2010, RPL initiated the Nashik Project for which the IICL invited bids.

5. According to L&T, the Nashik Project was concluded and the plant was commissioned on 30th May, 2017. Thereafter, in terms of the LoI and the LoA, payments were due to L&T, which were allegedly not paid by the Respondents-IICL and RPL, due to which L&T invoked the arbitration clause on 26th February, 2020 in terms of Clause 11.0 of the General Conditions of Contact (hereinafter, ‘GCC’).

6. The Arbitral Tribunal was constituted on 19th May, 2020, headed by a retired Supreme Court Judge and two retired Delhi High Court Judges. Proceedings commenced on 8th June, 2020. During the arbitral proceedings, RPL filed an application under Section 16 of the 1996 Act on 27th October, 2020, seeking dismissal of the claims. The said application was dismissed by the Arbitral Tribunal vide order dated 1st March, 2021.

7. In the arbitral proceedings, issues were framed on 17th June, 2021. Shortly thereafter, on 20th September, 2021, IICL entered into insolvency, and a moratorium was imposed under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, in the case titled Fidus Finance Pvt. Ltd. v. IIC Ltd. (IB) 112(ND)/2021. Consequently, the Arbitral Tribunal adjourned the proceedings sine die on 16th October, 2021, granting the parties the liberty to seek revival.

8. Vide email dated 10th January, 2022, the L&T coordinated with the Resolution Professional (hereinafter, 'RP'), and requested the RP to participate in the arbitration proceeding relating to the Nashik project and pursue its counterclaim. As per L&T, no response was received from the RP, who chose not to participate in the arbitral proceedings. On 15th February, 2022, the RP sent a communication requesting that the bank guarantees issued by L&T in favour of IICL, be maintained. Thus, according to L&T, though the RP was consistently communicating with the L&T in respect extension of the bank guarantees, there was no participation.

9. Following this, on 13th April 2022, L&T filed an application under Section 19 of the 1996 Act seeking revival of the arbitral proceedings. In the said application, a detailed order was passed by the Arbitral Tribunal on 13th July, 2022 which revived the arbitral proceedings qua RPL. The observations in the said order are set out below:

"16. It was also argued by the Ld. Counsel for Respondent No. 2 that the issues falling for determination in these proceedings ar