The court clarifies that S.29A permits applications for extension even after the arbitrator's mandate expires, emphasizing flexibility in arbitration proceedings.

1. Two of the present petitions1 under S.14(1) read with S.15(2) and S.11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act) have been filed by the Claimants in the arbitral proceedings, seeking substitution of the Sole Arbitrator Mr. Justice Swatanter Kumar (Retd.).2 The other two petitions3 under S.29A(5) of the Act have been filed by the Respondents in the arbitral proceedings, seeking an extension of the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal, which expired on 31st August, 2023.

2. The ATS group of companies, which includes ATS Infrastructure Ltd., Almond Infrabuild Private Limited, ATS Housing Private Limited, Anand Divine Developers Private Limited and Domus Greens Private Limited (hereinafter together referred to as ATS Group), is the claimant in the arbitral proceedings. The ATS Group, a real estate developer in the Delhi NCR region, has filed O.M.P. (T) (COMM.) 91/2023 and O.M.P. (T) (COMM.) 92/2023, seeking : (a) declaration that the Sole Arbitrator is incapable of further acting as the Sole Arbitrator; (b) substitution of the Sole Arbitrator; and (c) declare the proceedings conducted by and the orders passed by the Sole Arbitrator as non - est and void.

3. The Dalmia group includes entities such as Dalmia Family Office Trust, Dalmia Family Holdings LLP and allegedly, Rasbehari Traders4 (together, the Dalmia Group). The Dalmia Group, through O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 462/2023 and O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 493/2023, seeks extension of the mandate of the Sole Arbitrator in the various proceedings involving the Dalmia Group and the ATS Group.

4. Mr. Kartik Nayar, counsel for ATS Group, at the outset, states that the mandate of the Arbitrator stood terminated on 31st August, 2023 and as on the said date, no petition had been filed under S.29A of the Act seeking extension of the mandate. Therefore, he submits, that the only remaining option is to seek fresh proceedings, as S.29A of the Act bars applications for extension of the mandate once it has expired. He advances Rohan Builders (India) (P) Ltd. v. Berger Paints India Limited5 in support of this argument. He further submits that the aforementioned petitions filed by the Dalmia Group are non est and would have no bearing upon the arbitral proceedings as the mandate of the proceedings has been terminated due to expiry of the term. The invocation of S.29A after the expiry of the mandate of the Arbitrator, is of no effect. He further argues that the case law relied upon by Dalmia Group (discussed below), which suggests that this Court has the power to allow applications under S.29A even after the expiry of the mandate, are distinguishable as in those cases, no petition was filed under S.15 and S.11 of the Act. To emphasize this point, Mr. Nayar relies on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Datar Switchgears Ltd v. Tata Finance Ltd .6, which holds that the right of a party to appointment of an arbitrator ceases when the opposite party approaches the Court under S.11(6). Since no application for extension of the mandate under S.29A(5) was filed prior to the petitions filed by ATS Group, the present petitions seeking substitution are maintainable and deserve to be allowed.

5. Mr. Darpan Wadhwa, Senior Counsel for the Petitioner in O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 462/2023, on the other hand, states that the arbitration proceedings have already moved to advanced stages; some proceedings are at the stage of final arguments and some are for recording of evidence. The Arbitrator has already spent substantial time adjudicating the proceedings, arbitral record comprises of 396 volumes running into 500 pages each. There are el