[2026:RJ-JD:10773]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Misc. Application No. 19/2026 Mr. Aseem Watts S/o Sher Singh, Aged About 59 Years, R/o 135- L-Block, Sriganganagar, Rajasthan- 335001 Sole Proprietor Of M/s Aseem And Company, Having Its Office At 135-L-Block, Sriganganagar, Rajasthan-335001 ----Petitioner Versus

1. Union Of India, Through The Chief Engineer, Bathinda Zone, Bathinda Military Station, Bhatinda-151004

2. The Commander, Hq Commander Works Engineer, Ganganagar Military Station, Sri Ganganagar ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Aakash Kukkar Meenal Garg through VC For Respondent(s) : -

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKESH RAJPUROHIT

Order

26/02/2026

1. The present matter has comes upon an application filed by the applicant under Section 151 CPC seeking extension of time for pronouncement of the arbitral award by the learned Sole Arbitrator.

2. This Court does not deem it necessary to recapitulate the entire factual matrix of the case, as the same has already been dealt with in the previous order whereby an application seeking extension of the arbitral period as well as substitution of the arbitrator was allowed. Consequently, Hon’ble Mr. Justice (Retd.) Arvind Singh Sangwan was appointed as the learned Sole Arbitrator to proceed from the stage at which the proceedings were pending, and the time for completion of the arbitral proceedings was extended by six months from the date the learned new Arbitrator held the first hearing.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the first hearing before the learned Sole Arbitrator was held on 17.06.2025 and the award was reserved on 08.11.2025. It is further submitted that vide email dated 16.12.2025, the learned Sole Arbitrator informed the parties that the award was ready and at the final stage of vetting; however, on account of his illness and the said date being the last date for pronouncement of the award, he requested the parties to grant mutual consent for extension of 15 day’s time for pronouncement of the award.

4. It is further submitted that since the mandate could not be extended by mutual consent of the parties, the learned Sole Arbitrator, vide email dated 24.12.2025, requested the parties to approach this Court for extension of time for pronouncing the award by a period of one month. Hence, the present application has been filed.

5. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the material available on record.

6. The issue that arises for consideration is whether extension of the time granted by this Court for completion of the arbitral proceedings can be allowed and whether “sufficient cause” has been made out for extension of time for making and pronouncement of the arbitral award.

7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s Ajay Protech Ltd. vs.

General Manager & Anr. passed in SLP (Civil) No. 2272 of 2024 has elaborately considered the scope of extension of time and the meaning of “sufficient cause” under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The relevant paragraphs reproduced as under:

“15. Efficiency in the conduct of arbitral proceedings is integral to the effectiveness of the dispute resolution remedy through arbitration. Efficiency is inextricably connected with expeditious conclusion of arbitral proceedings. While the statute incorporates party autonomy even with respect to the conduct and conclusion of arbitral proceedings, there is a statutory recognition of the power of the Court to step in wherever it is necessary to ensure that the process of resolution of the dispute is taken to its logical end, if according to the Court, the circumstances so warrant. It is in this context that the Arbitration and Conciliation Act adopts the well-known language of limitation statutes and provides that the Court can extend the time if it finds that there is sufficient cause.

16. The meaning of ‘sufficient cause’ for extending the time to make an award must take colour from the underlying purpose of the arbitration process. The primary objective in renderi