Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN, BENCH AT JAIPUR
SAMEER JAIN, J.
HCL Infosystems Limited, Through Its Authorised Signatory Mr. Arif Jamal - Petitioner
Versus
Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Through Its Managing Director – Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16033 of 2024 Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7066 of 2026
Decided On : 27-05-2026
Key Points: - Successive applications under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 are not barred per se and may be maintainable in appropriate cases, but such maintainability must be tested on the touchstone of demonstrable, compelling, and bona fide reasons. (!) - The extension of the arbitral mandate can be granted only upon demonstration of "sufficient cause" as per Section 29A, subject to appropriate terms and conditions. (!) - The High Court can exercise its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against orders passed under Section 29A of the Act, as no statutory appeal is provided against such orders. (!) - When delay in arbitral proceedings is substantially attributable to the Arbitral Tribunal, the Court may intervene under Section 29A(4) to impose corrective measures, including reduction of arbitral fees. (!) - The Court, while extending the mandate under Section 29A, is empowered to impose such terms and conditions as it thinks fit for efficiency and integrity of the arbitral proceedings, and may also impose exemplary costs. (!) (!) - The conduct of the Arbitral Tribunal, marked by a casual approach, repeated adjournments, and fixation of high fee structures, which undermines the objectives of the Act, can warrant judicial correction, including the substitution of arbitrators. (!)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. consolidation of related petitions for expeditious adjudication under article 227 supervision. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. procedural history of arbitral timeline extensions and the impact of initial conditional grant. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. petitioner's contention regarding the illegality of successive extensions and misapplication of 'sufficient cause'. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 4. respondent's defense based on party autonomy, lack of statutory bar on extensions, and the advanced stage of arbitration. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29) |
| 5. scope of high court supervisory jurisdiction under article 227 in arbitral proceedings. (Para 36 , 37 , 38) |
| 6. maintainability of successive applications for time extension under section 29a based on the 'sufficient cause' test. (Para 39 , 40 , 41 , 42) |
| 7. requirement of judicial accountability and strict adherence to statutory timelines under section 24 and 29a. (Para 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52) |
| 8. regulation of exorbitant arbitral fees and venue shifts as contributing factors to procedural delay and prejudice. (Para 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60) |
| 9. corrective judicial intervention against the arbitral tribunal's failure to adhere to the statutory mandate. (Para 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71) |
| 10. court-ordered directions for expeditious conclusion of proceedings and reduction of fees due to delays. (Para 72 , 73 , 74 , 75) |
JUDGMENT :
SAMEER JAIN, J.
1. In view of the intrinsically intertwined nature of the controversy at hand, coupled with the strikingly identical factual substratum permeating the present batch of petitions, and upon express consent of the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, this Court, being persuaded by the congruence of the issues involved and in furtherance of the cause of expeditious and efficacious adjudication, proceeds to determine the instant petitions by way of this composite and common judgment. The ratio decidendi rendered herein shall, accordingly, govern the connected matters mutatis mutandis, subject to contextual adaptation on facts. For the purposes of maintaining factual coherence and narrative forbearance, the pleadings and averments as delineated in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7066/2026 (Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited & Ors. vs. HCL Infosys Limited) are hereby treated as the lead case and adopted as the foundational factual matrix for adjudication of the present lis. For the sake of reference and procedural lucidity, the tabular depiction ad infra delineates the constituent segments into which the present judgment stands bifurcated, thereby facilitating analytical coherence and navigational convenience.
A. PRAYERS AND RELIEFS CANVASSED BY THE PETITIONER(S) IN THE RESPECTIVE PETITIONS:
2. SBCWP No. 7066/2026 is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court over subordinate courts and tribunals, assailing the legality, propriety, and tenability of the order dated 24.02.2026 passed by the Commercial Court No.1, Jaipur Metropolitan-II, in Case No.34/2026 (CIS No.68/2025), whereby the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal has been extended till 30.09.2026; and SBCWP No. 16033/2024 has been filed assailing the impugned order dated 17.09.2024, pertaining to the initial extension granted under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1996”), on an application moved by the respondents–complainants therein, which came to be allowed subject to certain stipulated terms and conditions. Both matters, being inextricably interlinked and resting upon a common legal and factual foundation, have, with the concurrence of learned counsel for the respective parties, been taken up for conjoint and final adjudication.
3. In the present matters, the following prayers have been made:
“SBCWP No.7066/2026:
1. Allow the present Petition and set as
Payment of arbitrator fees is a statutory prerequisite for an arbitral tribunal to deliver an award, and the court has limited jurisdiction to interfere with extensions granted under Section 29A.
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....
Once the fee has been fixed with the consent of the parties, they are bound to pay the same. Issues relating to the conduct of the arbitration and/or arbitral fees are not relevant for the purpose of....
Court extends arbitrator's mandate post-termination under Section 29A(5) for sufficient cause like procedural and administrative delays not attributable to petitioner, ensuring practical, expeditious....
Extension of Sole Arbitrator's mandate under the Arbitration Act requires sufficient cause, unaffected by procedural misconduct by arbitrator, especially when delays arise from the respondent's actio....
Court extends arbitrator's mandate under Section 29A(5) for sufficient cause including clerical errors, procedural delays, pandemic effects not attributable to parties, ensuring logical conclusion of....
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.
(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....
Court extends arbitrator mandate post-expiry under Sec 29A(4),(5) on sufficient cause like advanced proceedings, non-attributable delay, ensuring logical conclusion without petitioner fault.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
