$~34 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 20.04.2026 + O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 326/2026 RAJESH GURALMAL NAGPAL .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Shubhankar Jha, Advocate.

versus RGA FRESH FRUIT PVT LTD & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Richa Sharma, Ms. Ritu Janjani and Mr. Nishant Shishodia, Advocates.

CORAM:

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

1. The present Petition, under Section 29(A) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [“the Act”], read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, has been filed seeking extension of the time of mandate of the learned Sole Arbitrator, which expired on 15.04.2026.

2. The material on record indicates that the parties entered into a Settlement Agreement [“Agreement”] on 18.02.2022, which contains an arbitration clause.

3. Upon disputes having arisen, the Petitioner invoked Arbitration vide notice dated 21.11.2022. However, the parties could not arrive at a consensus with respect to the appointment of a Sole Arbitrator. Hence, the Petitioner approached this Court under section 11(6) of the Act.

4. This Court vide Order dated 08.01.2024, appointed a learned Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties.

5. It is stated that the pleadings in the arbitral proceedings stood concluded on 28.09.2024. The proceedings have progressed substantially, and evidence has been led by both sides. The matter is presently at an advanced stage, including adjudication of the counter- claims. In terms of Section 29A(1) of the Act, the arbitral award was required to be rendered within the statutorily prescribed period. Upon expiry thereof, the parties, by mutual consent, extended the mandate of the learned Sole Arbitrator by a further period of six months till

15.04.2026, in terms of Section 29A(3) of the Act.

6. It is stated that despite the aforesaid extension, the arbitral proceedings could not be concluded within the extended period and the mandate of the learned Sole Arbitrator stood expired on 15.04.2026. Accordingly, the Petitioner had, before the expiry of the mandate of the learned Arbitrator, approached this Court, seeking extension of the mandate for a further period of twelve months for completion of the arbitral proceedings and rendering of the award.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the Respondents, who appear on advance notice, submit that they have no objection to the extension of the mandate of the learned Sole Arbitrator.

8. This Court has heard learned counsel for the 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 e