$~52 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: 16.03.2026 + O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 222/2026 RANDHAWA CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Parmanand Yadav & Mr.

Aman, Advs.

versus MS HCBS PROMOTERS AND DEVELOPERS PVT LTD .....Respondent Through: Mr. Azhar Alam & Mr. Sankalp Goswami, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR % JUDGEMENT (ORAL)

HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J.

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 29(A) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [“Act”], seeking a third extension of the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal by a further period of six (06) months.

2. It is stated that the parties entered into a Collaboration Agreement dated 11.06.2013.

3. The material on record indicates that certain disputes arose between the parties, pursuant to which, the parties approached this Court and vide Order dated 25.03.2021 passed in OMP.(I)(COMM.)

27/2021, the learned Sole Arbitrator was appointed to adjudicate the disputes inter se the parties.

4. The material on record further indicates that at the instance of the parties, the mandate of the learned Sole Arbitrator was extended by this Court on two prior occasions. This Court vide Order dated 05.05.2025, had extended the mandate of the learned Arbitrator for a further period of nine (09) months from the date of the Order, which expired on 05.02.2026.

5. It is submitted that, since the award could not be made, the Petitioner has, therefore, preferred the present Petition, thereby seeking the extension by a period of six (6) months to enable completion of the pending cross-examination, hearing of final arguments, and conclusion of the arbitral proceeding.

6. It is further submitted that despite diligent efforts, the arbitral proceedings could not be concluded within the extended period for the reasons aforesaid.

7. Mr. Sankalp, learned counsel, appears on advance notice and submits that he has no objection to the extension as sought for in the present petition.

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

9. At this juncture, 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 referred to in sub-section (4) may be on the application of any of the parties and may be granted only for sufficient