Jurisdiction for extending arbitration periods falls to District Courts under Section 29A(4) of the Arbitration Act, distinct from High Court powers under Section 11(6).

ORDER :

1. The present Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and Section 29A (4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dated 24.03.2025 in Arbitration O.P.No.172 of 2023 passed by the XXIV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, at Hyderabad (for short ‘the impugned order’)

2. Heard Mr. G. Pavan Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner; and Mr. S. Ravi, learned Senior Counsel representing M/s.R.S. Associates, learned counsel for the respondents.

3. Vide the impugned order, the Trial Court allowed the above A.O.P. by granting extension of period of (08) months from the date of order for completion of arbitral proceedings by the learned Arbitrator subject to payment of costs of Rs.5,000/- payable to the District Legal Services Authority.

4. The above A.O.P. was filed by respondent No.1 under Section 29A (4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 read with Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 praying the Trial Court to pass an order directing respondent No.2-Arbitral Tribunal to extend the period of arbitration proceedings in Arbitration Case No.1 of 2019 for a further period of one year from the date of order by duly setting aside the impugned proceedings dated 16.01.2021 whereby the arbitration proceedings stood terminated between the petitioner and the respondent from 31.12.2020.

5. The operative portion of the impugned order is reproduced as under:

“21. The arbitral proceedings were terminated at the stage of cross-examination of respondent’s witnesses which goes to show that most of the proceedings were completed. If the proceedings not permitted to continue further the interest of petitioner would be put to jeopardy.

22. In view of the above discussion and reasons mentioned, it is a fit case to grant extension of period of (08) months from the date of this order for completion of arbitral proceedings by the same Hon’ble Arbitrator. The petitioner shall pay costs of Rs.5,000/- to DLSA. Accordingly, this point is answered.

In the result, petition is allowed extending of time of (08) months from the date of this order for completion of arbitral proceedings subject to payment of costs of Rs.5,000/- to DLSA.”

6. The brief facts of the case is that respondent No.1 herein had preferred two arbitration applications, viz., Arbitration Application Nos.112 and 126 of 2017 under Section 11 (6) of the above Act before the High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad. Vide common order dated 20.06.2019 in Arbitration Application Nos.112 and 126 of 2017, a learned Single Judge of this Court had passed orders by appointing Sri Justice K.C. Bhanu, Retired Judge, High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh, residing at Villa No.43, Aditya Royal Palms, Gated Community, Road Opp. To 7 Tombs Gate, Shaikpet, Hyderabad, as the sole Arbitrator for resolution of dispute between the applicant company (respondent No.1 herein) and the respondent corporation (petitioner herein) arising out of Agreements dated 03.05.2013 and 19.06.2014 in accordance with the provisions and mandate of Act of 1996.

7. Thereafter, the period of arbitration proceedings stood expired w.e.f. 31.12.2020. However, on account of COVID Pandemic, the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed orders in Writ Petition No.3 of 2020, dated 08.03.2021, holding that : “the period from 15.03.2020 till 14.03.2021 shall stand excluded in computing the periods prescribed under Section 23(4) and 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 , …”. Subsequent thereto, respondent No.1 had also fil