ORDER

% 21.02.2024

1. These are the petitions seeking extension of time for completion of the arbitration proceedings in “PSA Protech and Infralogistics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Food Corporation of India”.

2. It is stated by Ms. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioners that in the present petition, the statutory period of 12 months in terms of Rule 24A(1) of the International Centre for Alternative Dispute Resolution expired on 13.12.2019.

3. Vide order dated 23.11.2019 passed by the Arbitral Tribunal, the mandate was extended for 6 months. However, on account of COVID-19 pandemic and in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3/2020, the period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 was excluded from the period of limitation. The benefit granted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court expired on 28.05.2022.

4. The parties were still proceeding with the arbitration. On 12.05.2023, the date of 14.05.2023 was cancelled and no date was fixed. Thereafter, the Arbitral Tribunal listed the matter on 18.02.2024.

5. In the meanwhile, the petitioner realising that the time has expired, has moved the present petition on 04.10.2023.

6. Mr. Manoj, learned standing counsel for the respondent has objected to the grant of time.

7. He states that in terms of 29A(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, the court may extend the time only if sufficient cause is shown.

8. Section 29A(5) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act reads as under:

“ 29A. Time limit for arbitral award- … (5) The extension of period referred to in sub-section (4) may be on the application of any of the parties and may be granted only for sufficient cause and on such terms and conditions as may be imposed by the Court.

…”

9. He further states that in the present case, the petitioner has been lackadaisical in prosecuting the arbitration proceedings and no sufficient cause has been shown to grant extension of time. It is stated that arbitration proceedings were going on even during the COVID-19 pandemic through VC and it is the petitioner who has been taking adjournment and also filing frivolous applications.

10. Lastly, he relies upon the judgment of a Coordinate Bench of this Court titled as “Skylark Cagers India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Institute of Liver and Biliary Sciences” [(2023) SSC OnLine Del 1276].

11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

12. Admittedly, in view of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3/2020, the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal expired on 28.05.2022. However, the fact remains that both the parties as well as the Arbitral Tribunal were under a mistaken belief that the mandate has not expired and were continuing with the arbitration proceedings till 30.04.2023. Even thereafter, the Arbitral Tribunal has given a date of 18.02.2024.

13. The judgment of Skylark Cagers India Pvt. Ltd (supra) is distinguishable as in that case, the Arbitral Tribunal vide order dated 14.10.2017 requested extension of time from this Court in order to conclude the Arbitration proceedings. The petition seeking extension of time was filed after 17 months of the order dated 14.10.2017. In the present case, the facts are distinguishable as both the parties were actively participating in the arbitral proceedings till 30.04.2023.

14. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in “ATS Infrastructure Ltd. and Anr. vs. Rasbehari Traders ” [O.M.P. (T) (COMM.) 91/2023] has differed from the view taken by “Rohan Builders (India) (P) Ltd. vs. Berger Paints India Limited” [(2023) SCC OnLine Cal 2645] to hold that the application under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act can be allowed even after the expiry of the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal. The operative paras are reproduced below:

“6. The Court has considered the aforenoted submissions, and it is not inclined to accept that Section 29A bars applications submitted after the expiry of the mandate from being entertained. The language of the provision is clear; “…the m