Court extends arbitrator's mandate under Section 29A upon sufficient cause like procedural delays and parties' participation, even post-18 months, to prevent defeating arbitration object by technicalities.

JUDGMENT :

RANJAN SHARMA, J.

1. Instant petition has been filed under Section 29-A (4) (5) and (6) of the ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT , 1996, seeking the following relief(s):-

“It is, therefore, prayed that the present application may kindly be allowed and the time period for completing the Arbitration proceeding and passing the award in the Arbitration proceeding in respect of work C/o Providing LIS Horticulture Land from Changawati Khad to G.P. Kalbog Nagan and Ram Nagar, Tehsil Kotkhai, Distt Shimla may kindly be ordered to be extended for further period of 6 months, in the interest of law and justice.”

2. Instant petition has been filed under Section 29-A (4) (5) and (6) of the ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT , 1996, seeking extension of the mandate of Learned Sole Arbitrator, for concluding the arbitral proceedings and passing of the Award, in respect of the contract work “C/o Providing LIS Horticulture Land from Changawati Khad to G.P. Kalbog Nagan and Ram Nagar, Tehsil Kotkhai, District Shimla” awarded by Jal Shakti Vibhag, Himachal Pradesh, vide Award letter dated 07.03.2019 for an amount of Rs. 6,78,53,553/-. Clause 25 of the Agreement provided for referring the disputes to a Sole Arbitrator to be appointed by Engineer-in-Chief/Chief Engineer, Jal Shakti Vibhag.

3. Since some dispute arose, therefore, in order to resolve the same through alternative disputes resolution the petitioner issued notice to the State Authorities on 18.01.2022. Since no action was taken, the petitioner approached this Court, by way of Arb. Case No.112 of 2022, under Section 11(6) of the Act and in terms of the judgment dated 28.10.2022 passed by this Court Shri J.S. Mahantan, District & Sessions Judge (Retd.) was appointed as the Sole Arbitrator. Pursuant thereto, Learned Arbitrator commenced the arbitral proceedings on 23.12.2022 after the completion of pleadings, an application was filed for additional documents and for leading further evidence. The testimony of one of the claimants was recorded and claimant’s evidence was closed on 22.04.2025. As many as 17 hearings were conducted and on 22.04.2025 [Annexure P-2, at page 21] Learned Arbitrator directed the parties to seek extension of time, so as to enable the Arbitrator to conclude the proceedings expeditiously.

4. Upon issuance of notice on 29.08.2025, Mr. Pranay Pratap Singh, Learned Additional Advocate General, appeared for the State Authorities- respondents and placed on record a communication dated 05.09.2025 [Taken on Record], conveying no objection to the prayer for extending the time for concluding the arbitral proceedings.

5. Heard, Mr. Santosh Kumar, Counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner and Mr. Pranay Pratap Singh, Learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondents.

6. Perusal of Section 29A (1) mandates the arbitral tribunal to complete the arbitral proceedings within 12 months from the date of completion of pleadings and this time-line was further extendable by six months with consent of parties. Beyond the period of 18 months, the mandate of the Arbitrator was extendable only by this Court, on an application revealing sufficient cause under Section 29A(4) and (5) of the Act.

7. In terms of the judgment in TATA Sons Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly TATA Sons Ltd.) vs. Siva Industries and Holdings Ltd. and others, 2023 (1) SCALE 793, the mandate of an Arbitrator is liable to be extended by the Court on sufficient cause, being made out, under Section 29A(4) and 29A(5) of the Act, in the following terms:-

“24 The provisions o