IMPORTANT POINT
The court reaffirmed that applications for extension of the mandate of an arbitral tribunal under Section 29A are maintainable before the court that appointed the arbitrator, emphasizing the importance of adhering to established precedents in the face of conflicting judgments.

JUDGMENT :

(Shekhar B. Saraf, J.) :

1. These applications have been filed under Section 29(A)(4) and Section 29(A)(5) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) praying for extension of the mandate of the arbitral tribunal.

2. Since the instant applications (ARBT – 4 of 2024 and ARBT – 5 of 2024) involve similar issues, they are being taken up together.

FACTS

3. The brief factual matrix involved in ARBT – 4 of 2024 has been delineated below:

(a) M/s Geo Miller and Co. Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Petitioner – ARBT 4’) and Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam and Others (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Respondents ARBT 4’) entered into a contract. Disputes and differences arose between the parties which were referred to arbitration.

(b) Petitioner – ARBT 4 filed an application under Section 11 of the Act for appointment of an arbitrator before this Court.

(c) Vide orders dated September 16, 2021 and October 6, 2021, this Court appointed Mr. Justice R.D. Khare (Former Judge of this Court) as the sole arbitrator.

(d) The time limited for making an arbitral award as provided under Section 29A of the Act expired on February 29, 2024. The arbitrator could not publish his award within the statutory time limit, and therefore, he asked the parties to seek extension of time in accordance with the law.

(e) Hence, the Petitioner – ARBT 4 filed the instant application being Civil Misc. Arbitration Application No. – 4 of 2024 under Section 29A of the Act.

4. The brief factual matrix involved in ARBT – 5 of 2024 has been delineated below:

(a) Disputes and differences arose between GPT Infraprojects Limited (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Petitioner – ARBT 5) and Kanpur Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Respondent – ARBT 5’) which were referred to arbitration.

(b) The arbitrator in the case was appointed by this Court under Section 11 of the Act vide orders dated June 18, 2021 and July 29, 2021.

(c) Since the time limit to make an arbitral award in accordance with Section 29A of the Act was about to expire on March 7, 2024, the Petitioner – ARBT 5 filed the instant application being Civil Misc. Arbitration Application No. – 5 of 2024 seeking extension of time before this Court.

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPLICANT IN ARBT NO. 4 OF 2024

5. Sri S.D. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the applicant has made the following submissions:

(i) This Court vide its order dated February 26, 2024 passed in M/s. Jaypee Infratech Limited -v- Ehbh Services Private Limited and Another had referred the issue regarding Section 29A of the Act before the Larger Bench in light of various conflicting judgments passed by different Coordinate Benches of this Court.

(ii) The question which arose in the present matter was that what will be the situation for deciding the cases during the pendency of the issues referred to the Larger Bench.

(iii) According to various judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, earlier decision can be relied upon during the pendency of the reference before the Larger Bench unless there is a specific order restraining the Court from deciding any matter on the issues that have been referred to the Larger Bench.

(iv) Judgment of this Court in Lucknow Agencies LKO -v-UP Awas Vikas Parishad and Ors. reported in MANU/UP/0885/2019 deals with a different situation and as such the said judgment is not in conflict of any of the judgments delivered by other Coordinate Benches of this Court. In the said case it has been held by this Court that when the arbitrator has not been appointed under Section 11 of the Act, an application under Section 29A of the Act would be maintainable only before the court as defined under Section 2(1)(e) of the Act.

(v) The issue that “Whether an application filed under Section 29A of the Act for extension of the mandate of the arbitral tribunal is maintainable before this Court or before the Court as defined under Section 2(1)(e) of the Act, when this Court has appointed th