$~53 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 882/2025 ERA INFRA ENGINEERING LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Anirban Bhattacharya, Ms.

Suvangana Agarwal, Ms.

Mrinal Dave, Mr. Rishabh Bafna and Mr. Rajeev Chowdhary, Advocates.

versus EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Lalltaksh Joshi and Mr.

Sameer Gupta, Advocates for Respondent/GNCTD.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR

O R D E R

% 21.01.2026

1. The present Petition, under Section 29A(4) and (5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [“the Act”], seeks extension of mandate of the learned Arbitral Tribunal for a period of 12 months w.e.f. 15.11.2025.

2. The material on record indicates that the parties entered into a contract dated 19.01.2009 [“Contract”]. Subsequently, since disputes arose between the parties, the Petitioner invoked arbitration as per the terms of Clause 25 of the General Conditions of the Contract, vide Notice dated 14.03.2017.

3. Thereafter, the Petitioner preferred a petition under Section 11(6) of the Act before this Court, seeking the appointment of an Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes inter se the parties. Accordingly, vide Order dated 19.05.2017, this Court appointed a learned Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties.

4. The learned Arbitrator entered into reference and a preliminary hearing was held on 05.06.2017. The pleadings are stated to have been completed on 07.10.2017, and thus mandate for twelve months continued till 07.01.2018. Thereafter, upon the consent of the parties, the mandate of the learned Arbitrator was extended for a period of six (6) months.

5. Thereafter, multiple extensions were granted by this Court upon the Petitioner filing the Petitions under Section 29A of the Act.

6. The material on record further indicates that the mandate of the learned Arbitrator expired on 15.11.2025 and in view of the same, the Petitioner has filed the present Petition.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the Respondent states that he does not have any objection to the extension of the mandate.

8. This Court has heard learned counsel for both parties and perused the record of the present petition.

9. 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 exceeding five per cent for each month of such delay:

[Provided further that where an application under sub-section (5) is pending, the mandate of the arbitrator shall continue till the disposal of the said application:

Provided also that the arbitrator shall be given an opportunity of being heard before the fees is reduced.]

(5) The extension of period referr