* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 20.04.2026 + O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 327/2026 M/S ANJ VC JV .....Petitioner Through: Mr. S.K. Maniktala, Mr. Udit Maniktala, Mr. Mohit Sharma, Mr. Mohit Singh, Ms. Anju Katoch and Mr. Yudit Bhardwaj, Advocates.

versus NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA .....Respondent Through: Mr. Subash Bhat and Ms. Lisha Chauhan, Advocates.

CORAM:

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

1. The present Petition has been filed under Section 29A(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, $~35, seeking extension of the time of mandate of the learned Sole Arbitrator, appointed vide Order dated 03.07.2023, in case being ARB.P. 1460/2022, up to 31.03.2027. 2. The material on record indicates that the parties entered into a Contract dated 08.08.2018, Agreement. Subsequently, since disputes arose between the parties, the Petitioner invoked Arbitration as per the terms of the Agreement, vide Notice dated 28.10.2022 and thereafter preferred a Petition under Section 11 of the Act before this Court.

1 Act

3. Accordingly, it is submitted that vide Order dated 03.07.2023, a learned Sole Arbitrator was appointed. Subsequently, the pleadings were completed on 16.05.2024. Thereafter, evidence has been led by the parties. The cross-examination of the claimant’s witness has been concluded, and the matter is presently at the stage of cross-

examination of the respondent’s witness.

4. 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 approached this Court earlier by way of O.M.P. (Misc.) (Comm.) No. 664/2025.

5. This Court, vide order dated 21.08.2025, extended the mandate of the learned Sole Arbitrator till 31.03.2026.

6. It is stated that despite the said extension, the arbitral proceedings could not be concluded within the extended period on account of the nature of disputes, the requirement of detailed evidence, and certain intervening circumstances. The proceedings, however, have progressed substantially.

7. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the proceedings are at an advanced stage and require limited time for completion of evidence, final arguments, and rendering of the award. In view thereof, it is prayed prayed that the mandate be extended till

31.03.2027.

8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent appears on advance service and submits, on instructions, that the Respondent has no objection to the prayer as sought for.

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

10. This Court is of the view that in the interest of justice, to ensure continuity and consistency, and since both the parties are ad idem for the said extension, there is no impediment in the grant of relief as sought for.

11. At this juncture, it is apposite 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