The court may extend an arbitral tribunal's mandate post-expiry upon showing sufficient cause. A party’s diligent pursuit of remedies in alternative forums, even if incorrect, evidences good faith, negates intentional delay, and justifies an extension to ensure the timely and effective resolution of disputes.

AVNEESH JHINGAN, J. (ORAL)

1. This petition is filed under Section 29A(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short „the Act‟) seeking extension of the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal for a period of one year.

2. The brief facts are that the petitioner is a unit registered under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (for short „MSMED Act‟). There was dispute amongst the parties and the petitioner in March 2020 approached the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council (for short ‘MSME Council’) and the matter was referred on 14.07.2021 to Delhi International Arbitration Centre (for short ‘DIAC’). The first date before the Arbitrator was 12.11.2021. Respondent no.1 put in first appearance on 09.09.2022 before the Arbitrator and respondent no.2 appeared on 01.12.2022 and sought time. On 23.03.2023, a statement of defence was filed by respondent no.2 alongwith an application under Section 16 of the Act. The order was reserved on 11.01.2024. On 29.06.2024, the petitioner was informed that the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal had expired.

3. On 11.11.2024, the petitioner attempted to approach the MSME Council for getting the expiry of the mandate redressed but was not successful. On 29.01.2025, the petitioner approached the learned District Judge (Commercial Court), Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, for extension of the mandate but the petition was rejected on 07.08.2025 as not maintainable. Thereafter, on 26.08.2025, the present petition was filed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that considerable time was consumed in securing appearance of the respondents. The application filed by respondent no.2 under Section 16 of the Act was argued, the order was reserved and in the meantime the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal expired. The contention is that there was no delay on part of the petitioner. Decision of the Supreme Court in M/s Ajay Protech Pvt. Ltd. v. General Manager & Anr. 2024 INSC 889 is relied upon to fortify the contention that the mandate can be extended even after the expiry of the period.

5. Per contra, there was a delay of four hundred days in approaching this court and no sufficient cause is pleaded. It is argued that even the Commercial Court was approached after a period of two hundred thirty-nine days. The application is belated and should be rejected on this ground alone.

5.1 Reliance is placed upon the decision in Madanlal v. Shyamlal (2002) 1 SCC 535 to buttress the argument that „sufficient cause‟ requires a higher degree of proof than „reasonable cause‟. Rohan Builders (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Berger Paints India Ltd. 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2494 is relied to contend that extension is not to be granted mechanically but only in cases where sufficient cause is shown. The decisions in Balwant Singh v. Jagdish Singh & Ors. (2010) 8 SCC 685, Skylark Cagers India Pvt. Ltd. v. Institute of Liver and Biliary Sciences 2023 SCC OnLine Del 1276, and H. P. Singh v. G. M. Northern Railways & Ors. 2023 SCC OnLine J&K 1255 are also relied upon to oppose the extension.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. No contentions other than those noted above have been pressed.

7. On a reading of Sections 29A(4) and 29A(5) of the Act it emerges that the period can be extended by this court upon sufficient cause being shown and extension can be either prior to or after the expiry of the period.

8. One and a half years in arbitration was consumed in completing service and in filing of the statement o