$~9 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 362/2024 SAIF MOBIN .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Nitin Yadav, Adv.

versus KRISHAN PAL SINGH .....Respondent Through:

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD

O R D E R

% 17.12.2025

1. The present Petition under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, has been filed by the Petitioner for extending the mandate of the Arbitrator.

2. The Order dated 24.09.2025 indicates that the Respondent has been served through electronic mode. Ms. Kirti Agarwal, Learned Counsel for the Respondent had appeared on that day stating that she had been instructed by the Respondent to appear in the matter. This indicates that the service has been completed.

3. The present Petition is for extension of mandate of the Arbitrator who had been appointed in ARB.P. 881/2018 by this Court vide Order dated

04.04.2019.

4. The material on record reveals that the pleadings were completed on 15.09.2021, and the issues were framed on 13.02.2022. Evidence by way of affidavit was filed by the Petitioner/Claimant on 15.05.2022.

5. An Application under Section 38 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, was filed by the Petitioner/Claimant on 12.02.2024 in the Arbitration proceedings. The Order dated 14.02.2024 indicates that an application was filed for striking out the defence of the Respondent and the parties were directed to move an application for extension of time.

6. Material on record indicates that the pleadings were completed on 15.09.2021, which means, the period of 12 months came to end on 15.09.2022. There is nothing on record which indicates that from 15.09.2022, the parties have mutually extended the period by further six months.

7. On 15.05.2022, the proceedings before the learned Arbitrator were suspended for payment of the Arbitrator fees.

8. The Petition under Section 29A has only been filed by the Petitioner in May, 2024, i.e., after a lapse of one year from the date of expiry of the period of six months when the mandate was supposed to be mutually extended. No reason is forthcoming as to why there is a delay in filing the present Petition. Rather, vide Order dated 14.02.2024, the Learned Arbitrator instructed the parties to file an application for extension of mandate before this Court.

9. The Apex Court in Mohan Lal Fatehpuria v. Bharat Textile & Others, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2754. Relevant paragraph of the judgment reads as under:-

“11. The undisputed facts which emerge from the record before us, are that, the sole Arbitrator entered the reference on 20.05.2020 and directed the parties to file the statements of claim and defence. The period of six months prescribed under Section 23(4) of the Act, for completion of pleadings expired on 19.11.2020. The period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 deserves to be excluded on account of pandemic caused by Covid- 19 virus. In view of mandate contained in Section 29A(1) of the Act, the sole Arbitrator was under an obligation to pass an award within a period of one year from 01.03.2022, i.e. on or before 28.02.2023.

However, the sole Arbitrator failed to do so. The parties did not apply for extension of period to pass an award. The sole arbitrator, in view of mandate contained in Section 29A(4) became functus officio.

12. We are conscious of the fact that a two Judge Bench of this Court has interpreted the word „terminate‟ in Section 29A(4), while dealing with an issue whether an application for extension of time for passing the arbitral award is maintainable even after the expiry of twelve months or extended six month period, as the case may be. It has been held that on expiry of the initial period of six months and extended period of six months, the Arbitral Tribunal becomes functus officio but not in absolute terms. It has further been held that the termination of arbitral mandate is conditional upon the filing of an application for extension and cannot be treated termination stricto sensu. It has also been held that the legisl