The Court holds that under Section 29-A(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, a court may extend the mandate of an arbitral tribunal beyond statutory and consensual timelines upon demonstration of sufficient cause, provided the progress of proceedings justifies such an extension.

O R D E R

05.01.2026

1. The present Petition is filed under Section 29-A (5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [“the Act”] seeking extension of time for making and publishing the arbitral award in arbitral proceedings arising out of a Construction Contract Agreement dated 17.09.2021[“Agreement”], executed between the Petitioner, Kalpataru Projects International Limited, and the Respondent, Northern Railway.

2. Owing to the disputes between the parties, the Petitioner invoked the Arbitration by issuing Notice Invoking Arbitration dated 02.05.2023.

3. Petitioner had filed a Petition under Section 11 of the Act before this Hon’ble Court being the Arbitration Petition No. 766 of 2023. This Court vide Order 20.12.2023 had appointed Hon’ble Mr. Justice (Retd.) Vineet Saran as the nominee arbitrator for the Petitioner and Hon’ble Mr. Justice (Retd.) S. Muralidhar as the nominee arbitrator for the Respondent.

4. The Nominee Arbitrators of the parties appointed Hon’ble Mr. Justice (Retd.) Krishan Murari as the presiding Arbitrator and a notice for preliminary hearing was addressed to the parties by the Ld. Presiding Arbitrator on 05.02.2024. Thus, the Tribunal comprised of Hon’ble Mr. Justice (Retd.) Krishan Murari, Hon’ble Mr. Justice (Retd.) Vineet Saran and Hon’ble Mr. Justice (Retd.) S. Muralidhar [“Learned Tribunal”].

5. Since the mandate of the learned Tribunal was due to expire on 05.07.2025, parties were directed by the learned Tribunal to file a Joint Memo recording their consent to extend the mandate of the learned Tribunal by a period of 6 months in terms of Section 29-A (3) of the Act. The said Joint memo dated 25.05.2025 was filed on 27.05.2025 before the learned Tribunal and the mandate was extended by consent till 05.01.2026.

6. It is stated that since the mandate of the learned Tribunal has come to an end, the Petitioner has approached this Court seeking an extension of the mandate for a period of twelve months for completion of proceedings and the rendering of the award.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the Respondent, who appears on advance notice, states that he does not have any objection to the extension of the mandate.

8. Before proceeding further, it is necessary to note the relevant statutory provision. Section 29-A of the Act prescribes the timeline for making an arbitral award and stipulates the consequences of non-compliance. For clarity, Section 29-A of the Act is reproduced below:

“29-A. Time limit for arbitral award.— [(1) The award in matters other than international commercial arbitration shall be made by the arbitral tribunal within a period of twelve months from the date of completion of pleadings under sub-section (4) of Section 23:

(2) If the award is made within a period of six months from the date the arbitral tribunal enters upon the reference, the arbitral tribunal shall be entitled to receive such amount of additional fees as the parties may agree.

(3) The parties may, by consent, extend the period specified in sub-section (1) for making award for a further period not exceeding six months.

(4) If the award is not made within the period specified in sub-section (1) or the extended period specified under sub-section (3), the mandate of the arbitrator(s) shall terminate unless the court has, either prior to or after the expiry of the period so specified, extended the period:

Provided that while extending the period under this sub-section, if the court finds that the proceedings have been delayed for the reasons attributable to the arbitral tribunal, then, it may order reduction of fees of arbitrator(s) by not exce