SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI

&

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI

1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgment/ Order? Yes/No

2. Whether the copy of Judgment/ Order may be marked to Law Reporters/Journals? Yes/No

3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Judgment/ Order? Yes/No

JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari)

Heard Sri Javvaji Sarath Chandra, learned counsel for the petitioner/ claimant and Sri A.Padmanabham, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. This petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, has been filed challenging the order dated 31.07.2025 passed in C.A.O.P.No.2 of 2025 by the learned Special Court for Trial and Disposal of Commercial Disputes, Vijayawada (for short ‘the Special Court’).

3. The C.A.O.P.No. 2 of 2025 was filed by the petitioner/ applicant/ claimant under section 29-A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short ‘the Act’) for extension of the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal for a period of 12 months from 27.09.2023. The petition was filed, inter alia, on the averments that the claimant filed AOP.No.330 of 2019 under section 9(2) of the Act on the file of XII Additional District Judge, Vijayawada restraining the respondents therein from alienating certain flats in 'KAR Sree Brindhavanam' till disposal of the arbitration proceedings. The learned XII Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, by an order dated 09.08.2021, granted interim injunction against the respondents and directed the parties to approach Arbitrator.

4. The sole arbitrator was appointed basing on the joint memo dated 23.04.2021 filed by the parties before the learned XII Additional District Judge, Vijayawada. It was submitted that due to Covid-19 situation, there was delay in communication of the appointment order to the sole arbitrator. The 1st arbitral sitting was held on 30.11.2021. On 30.11.2021, the Arbitration Tribunal directed the respondents to file their statement of claim on or before 30.12.2021 and later, for reply, the time was given till 17.01.2022 and the schedule was fixed for further proceedings. Due to Covid-19 situations, the proceedings were stalled for some time and later, the claimant filed an interim application for grant of injunction with respect to the certain items of the scheduled property. There was also change of advocate of the claimant for twice and later on, on the joint memo, the time was extended for a period of 6 months. The Arbitral Tribunal conducted 36 sessions till 25.09.2023 and thereafter, the arbitral proceedings continued for 51 sessions till 06.03.2024. The arbitral proceedings could not be completed within the specified period. The evidence from the claimant's side was concluded on 27.09.2023 and the evidence from the respondents’ side was concluded on 06.03.2024. Consequently, the petition/ C.A.O.P.No.2 of 2025 under Section 29-A of the Act was filed. The prayer was made for extension of time.

5. However, the prayer as mentioned in clause (a) of the affidavit was that the time be extended for completion of the arbitration proceedings and passing of the arbitral award by a period of 12 months with effect from 27.09.2023.

6. The respondents filed counter affidavit denying the averments made in the petition and submitted that they could not file the statement before the Arbitral Tribunal on 30.12.2021, which was filed on 02.06.2022. It was further contended that the court had no jurisdiction to entertain the petition and the claimant filed the petition with no bona fide reasons and prayed to dismiss the same.

7. On hearing the respective counsels, the learned Special Court framed the following point for determination.

“Whether this Court can extend the mandate of the learned Sole Arbitrator for a period of 12 months with effect from 27.09.2023, as prayed for ?”

8. On the aforesaid point for determination, learned Special Court recorded the finding that no co