Court holds that multiple applications for extension under Section 29A of the Arbitration Act are permissible if sufficient cause is shown, rejecting any statutory bar to multiple extensions.

Headnote:(A) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 29A(1), (3), (4), (5) - Time limit for arbitral award - Extension of mandate of Arbitrator - Court’s power to grant multiple extensions upon sufficient cause - No statutory prohibition on multiple extensions - Sufficient cause must be shown for extension.

(B) Interpretation - Restrictive interpretation of procedural provisions leading to penal consequences should be avoided - Statutory provisions allowing flexibility should be liberally construed to prevent injustice.

Facts of the case:
An application was filed seeking extension of the mandate of the Arbitrator beyond the prescribed time limit under Section 29A of the Act, citing delays attributed to respondent’s absence and procedural delays. The respondent opposed the application contending that only one extension application is permitted by law.

Findings of Court:
Court held that Section 29A does not prohibit multiple extension applications and the only requirement is sufficient cause for extension. Delay was attributable to respondent’s conduct and not applicant or Arbitrator. Objections without counter affidavit were rejected.

Issues: Whether a party can file more than one application for extension under Section 29A(5) of the Act; and whether sufficient cause exists for granting the extension.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that no express prohibition exists against multiple extension applications; thus, each is to be considered on its merits. The legislature intended to enable timely completion without unjust penalization. Extension was granted due to sufficient cause shown, respondent’s delay, and to meet ends of justice (Paras 6, 7, and 8).

Result: Application allowed and mandate of Arbitrator extended by six months to pronounce the arbitral award.

This application has been filed under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short “the Act”), seeking for extension of the mandate of the learned Arbitrator by extending another period of six months from 05.01.2025.

2. The following reasons have been given by the applicant for filing this application:-

i) The proceedings before the learned Arbitrator had commenced on 02.09.2021. The applicant had filed their claim statement on 24.09.2021. The respondent had filed their statement of defense on 26.10.2021 and the applicant had filed their rejoinder on 23.11.2021. Therefore, the time limit for passing the arbitral award commenced from the said date.

ii) The applicant had addressed an email to the learned Arbitrator requesting to commence the proceedings on 15.11.2025.

iii) The learned Arbitrator, vide email dated 21.11.2023, directed the applicant to file necessary application before this Court seeking for extension of the Arbitrator's mandate under Section 29A(4) of the Act.

iv) The applicant, accordingly, filed an application before this Court in A.No.6776 of 2023 under Section 29A(4) of the Act seeking extension of the Arbitrator's mandate. The said application was allowed by this Court vide its order dated 04.01.2024, extending the mandate of the learned Arbitrator by a period of one year.

v) Subsequent to the aforesaid order passed by this Court, the applicant had addressed an email to the learned Arbitrator on 11.01.2024 requesting to fix the hearing dates.

vi) According to the applicant, there was no response from the respondent to proceed with the arbitration.

vii) The learned Arbitrator had addressed an email to all the parties fixing the date of hearing and further directed the applicant to serve notice on the respondent. In furtherance of the same, the applicant had sent a notice to the respondent and his counsel informing them of the order of extension and the hearing scheduled by the learned Arbitrator. An email containing the notice and a copy of the order passed by this Court was also sent to the respondent and his counsel on 29.01.2024. However, the respondent through his counsel sent an email dated 02.02.2024 to the learned Arbitrator informing that he would not be in a position to participate in the arbitration.

viii) The respondent filed an application seeking to recall the order dated 04.01.2024 passed by this Court under Section 29A(4) of the Act granting extension of the Arbitrator's mandate.

ix) The respondent did not participate in the arbitral proceedings before the Arbitrator held on 03.02.2024

x) The next hearing of the arbitration was scheduled on 17.02.2024 and an intimation of the said hearing date was also communicated to the respondent.

xi) Once again, the respondent had addressed an email to the learned Arbitrator on 17.02.2024 stating that the proceedings may be halted until the application filed by the respondent seeking to recall the order dated 04.01.2024 passed by this Court under Section 29A(4) of the Act, is taken up for consideration by this Court.

xii) On 04.06.2024, the learned Arbitrator issued a communication to the parties stating that the matter will be proceeded with, since there is no update provided by the respondent with regard to their recall application filed before this Court.

xiii) The learned Arbitrator fixed the next date of hearing in the arbitration as 17.06.2024 and the same was also intimated to the respondent's counsel by the learned Arbitrator.

xiv) On 17.06.2024, the respondent had marked his presence before the Arbitrator, but, stated that their participation in the matter would be without prejudice to their rights and contentions in the pending adjudication to recall the order dated 04.01.2024 passed under Section 29A(4) of the Act.

xv) The learned Arbitrator directed both the parties to file their affidavit of admission/denial of documents and their draft issues by 27.06.2024.

xvi) The applicant was directed to file their proof affidavit on or before 05.07.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 18970

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASHonourable Mr Justice ABDUL QUDDHOSEApplicant – AppellantVersusRespondent – Respondent

Court holds that multiple applications for extension under Section 29A of the Arbitration Act are permissible if sufficient cause is shown, rejecting any statutory bar to multiple extensions.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Honourable Mr Justice ABDUL QUDDHOSE
Applicant – Appellant
Versus
Respondent – Respondent