The court can extend the mandate of arbitrators under Section 29A(5) after an award is rendered, even if done post statutory timeline, reinforcing the integrity of the arbitration process.

JUDGMENT

1. Leave granted.

I. Question of Law

The following question of law has arisen for our consideration.

Whether a Court can entertain an application under Section 29A (5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to extend the mandate of the arbitrator(s) for making the award even after an ‘award’ is rendered, though after the expiry of the statutory limit of eighteen-month period?

2. We have considered the text as well as the context in which Parliament introduced Section 29A to the Act, empowering the Court to extend the mandate of the arbitrator. The power and the jurisdiction of the Court are not impaired by the indiscretion of the arbitrator in rendering an ‘award’ without a mandate, particularly when such an award does not partake the character of a decree and is unenforceable under Section 36 . We have also explained the important role that the Court plays while balancing the twin interests - of securing the remedy of resolution of disputes through arbitration and ensuring integrity in its conduct. Though, the questions that we are required to consider had not arisen for consideration in Rohan Builders (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Berger Paints India Ltd., 2024 SCC Online SC 2494., we approve the observations made therein that the Court can entertain an application under Section 29A (5) and pass appropriate orders under Section 29A (4) for extension of the mandate of the arbitrator even after the award is rendered in the meanwhile.

II. Facts

3. The contractual relationship between the appellant and the respondent is governed by three agreements to sell, Agreements to sell dated 19.12.2015, 31.07.2018 and 24.03.2021.. As disputes arose, the appellant filed an application under Section 11 of the Act and the High Court, by its order dated 19.04.2022,, Order dated 19.04.2022 in Arb.O.P.(Com.Div) No.2 of 2022. appointed a sole arbitrator. The arbitrator issued notice on 04.05.2022 and convened the first meeting on 28.05.2022, and the pleadings were completed on 20.08.2022, which date marked the commencement of the period of twelve months provided under Section 29A (1) of the 1996 Act for the making the Award. Before the conclusion of twelve months, parties filed a joint memo under Section 29A (3) and extended the mandate of the arbitrator by a further period of six months, ending on 20.02.2024. Arguments concluded, and the matter was reserved for final award on 09.09.2023.

3.1 Events that unfolded thereafter are indicative of myriad instances when real life fails to keep pace with human discipline for timelines. Despite the award being indicated to be almost ready, the proceedings were reopened on the representation of the parties. On the basis of emails from the respondent that settlement discussions are ongoing and are expected to be finalised by 15.11.2023, the matter was adjourned to 07.01.2024 and thereafter to 27.01.2024. However, when it was reported that the discussions did not fructify into a settlement, the arbitrator reserved the matter for award on 30.01.2024. Notwithstandin