##PAGE1##

$~63

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 991/2025

TRANS IMAGE CORPORATION .....Petitioner

Through: (appearance not given)

versus

NATIONAL TECHNICAL RESEARCH ORGANIZATION

.....Respondent

Through: Ms. Arti Bansal, Adv. for NTRO

Ms. Yashaswi Sk Chocksey, GP for

UOI

Dr. B. Ramaswamy, CGSC

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH

O R D E R

% 22.12.2025

1. This is a petition filed under Section 29A (4) and (5) of the Arbitration

and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking extension of the mandate of the

Arbitrator by a period of 4 months for making and publishing the

award.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that in the present case, the

first Award was passed on 02.08.2025, prior to the expiry of the

mandate of the Arbitrator i.e. 05.08.2025 . There were clerical errors.

Therefore, the petitioner moved an application under Section 33 of the

1996 Act on 13.08.2025. However, on that day, the mandate of

Arbitrator had already expired. Hence, the present application.

3. Dr. B.Ramaswamy, learned CGSC for respondent, states that petition

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/01/2026 at 01:02:46

under Section 34 of the 1996 Act has already been filed. However, the

facts remains that the Arbitrator has passed the Award dated

02.08.2025 prior to the expiry of the mandate on 05.08.2025. It is the

same award which was sought to be corrected due to clerical mistake

and hence, in case the time is not extended, the entire exercises go

waste.

4. In Rohan Builders (India) (P) Ltd. v. Berger Paints India Ltd., 2024

SCC OnLine SC 2494

“13. An interpretive process must recognize the goal or

purpose of the legal text. Section 29A intends to ensure the

timely completion of arbitral proceedings while allowing

courts the flexibility to grant extensions when warranted.

Prescribing a limitation period, unless clearly stated in

words or necessary, should not be accepted. Bar by

limitation has penal and fatal consequences. This Court in

North Eastern Chemicals Industries (P) Ltd. and Another v.

Ashok Paper Mill (Assam) Ltd. and Another 2023 SCC

OnLine SC 1649 observed:

“When no limitation stands prescribed it would be

inappropriate for Court to supplant the legislature’s

wisdom by its own and provide a limitation, more so in

accordance with what it believes to be the appropriate

period.”

Courts should be wary of prescribing a specific period of

limitation in cases where the legislature has refrained from

doing so. If we give a narrow and restrictive meaning to

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/01/2026 at 01:02:46

Section 29A(4), we would be indulging in judicial

legislation by incorporating a negative stipulation of a bar

of limitation, which has a severe annulling effect. Such an

interpretation will add words to widen the scope of

legislation and amount to modification or rewriting of the

statute. If the legislature intended such an outcome, it could

have stated in the statute that – “the Court may extend the

period only if the application is filed before the expiry of the

mandate of the arbitrator, not after”. Indeed, there would

have been no need to use the phrase “after the expiry of the

period” in the statute.

….

15. Rohan Builders (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Berger Paints India

Limited (supra) highlights that an interpretation allowing

an extension application post the expiry period would

encourage rogue litigants and render the timeline for

making the award inconsequential. However, it is apposite

to note that under Section 29A(5), the power of the court to

extend the time is to be exercised only in cases where there

is sufficient cause for such extension. Such extension is not

granted mechanically on filing of the application. The

judicial di