Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Rohan Builders (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Berger Paints India Ltd. (2024 SCC OnLine SC 2494) - The Supreme Court clarified that applications for extension of time under Section 29A(4) and 29A(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, are maintainable even after the expiry of the original or extended mandate of the arbitral tribunal. The Court emphasized that such extensions should not be granted mechanically and only for sufficient cause, warning against encouraging rogue litigants ["M/S SHIVA ENGINEERING COMPANY Vs M/S RELIANCE COMMUNICATION LTD. & ANR. - Delhi"], ["SEVEN HILLS PROJECT PRIVATE LIMITED vs ORIENTAL STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS PVT. LTD. - Delhi"], ["M/S TELEXCELL INFORMATION SYSTEMS LIMITED Vs M/S TATA ADVANCED SYSTEMS LIMITED - Delhi"].
Legal Position on Extensions Post-Mandate Expiry - The Court acknowledged divergent views in lower courts. The Calcutta High Court held that applications for extension can be entertained even after the tribunal's mandate lapses ["M/S SHIVA ENGINEERING COMPANY Vs M/S RELIANCE COMMUNICATION LTD. & ANR. - Delhi"], ["M/S POWER MECH PROJECTS LTD Vs M/S DOOSAN POWER SYSTEMS INDIA PVT. LTD. - Delhi"], ["M/S TELEXCELL INFORMATION SYSTEMS LIMITED Vs M/S TATA ADVANCED SYSTEMS LIMITED - Delhi"]. Conversely, some courts, like the Delhi High Court in ATC Telecom (2023 SCC OnLine Del 7135), dissented, emphasizing that extensions should be sought before mandate expiry ["INDIABULLS DISTRIBUTION SERVICES LIMITED Vs. BELLAGIO PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED - Delhi"].
Main Points from the Judgment - The Court reiterated that the purpose of Section 29A is to ensure timely passing of awards and discourage delay tactics. Allowing extensions after the mandate expires could undermine this purpose ["M/S SHIVA ENGINEERING COMPANY Vs M/S RELIANCE COMMUNICATION LTD. & ANR. - Delhi"], ["CNH INDUSTRIAL CAPITAL (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED. VS. M/S MAGRAY ASSOCIATES PRIVATE LIMITED - Delhi"]. However, the Court also recognized that procedural delays or genuine causes could justify post-mandate extensions, provided they are supported by sufficient cause ["M/S SHIVA ENGINEERING COMPANY Vs M/S RELIANCE COMMUNICATION LTD. & ANR. - Delhi"].
Implications for Arbitration Proceedings - The decision affirms that the courts can entertain applications for extension even after the tribunal's mandate has lapsed, provided the application is filed before the expiry or based on valid reasons. This aligns with the Court's broader stance to uphold arbitration's efficacy while preventing abuse ["M/S SHIVA ENGINEERING COMPANY Vs M/S RELIANCE COMMUNICATION LTD. & ANR. - Delhi"], ["SEVEN HILLS PROJECT PRIVATE LIMITED vs ORIENTAL STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS PVT. LTD. - Delhi"].
Analysis and Conclusion:The Supreme Court's ruling in this case consolidates the legal position that applications for extending the arbitral tribunal's mandate are maintainable post-expiry if filed timely and with sufficient cause. It underscores the importance of procedural diligence but also recognizes flexibility to prevent miscarriage of justice. This judgment clarifies the scope of Sections 29A(4) and 29A(5), emphasizing that extensions should not be granted mechanically but are permissible to uphold the integrity of arbitration proceedings ["M/S SHIVA ENGINEERING COMPANY Vs M/S RELIANCE COMMUNICATION LTD. & ANR. - Delhi"], ["SEVEN HILLS PROJECT PRIVATE LIMITED vs ORIENTAL STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS PVT. LTD. - Delhi"].
Arbitration is a cornerstone of efficient dispute resolution in India, prized for its speed and party autonomy. However, strict timelines under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, have often led to premature termination of arbitral tribunals, frustrating ongoing proceedings. A pivotal question arose: Can courts entertain applications for extending the time to make an arbitral award under Section 29A(4) read with Section 29A(5) even after the initial 12-month period or the additional 6-month extension expires? The Supreme Court's decision in Rohan Builders (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Berger Paints India Ltd., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 777 / 2024 INSC 686 (decided on 12-09-2024), provides clarity, holding that such applications are maintainable post-expiry, preventing automatic termination of the tribunal's mandate solely due to time lapse. Rohan Builders (India) Private Limited VS Berger Paints India Limited - 2024 7 Supreme 558
This ruling aligns arbitration practice with legislative intent for flexibility, overruling rigid High Court precedents. Below, we delve into the judgment's nuances, statutory analysis, and its ripple effects across subsequent cases.
The Supreme Court unequivocally ruled that an application for extension of time under Section 29A(4) and (5) can be filed and entertained even after the expiry of the initial 12 months under Section 29A(1) or the further 6 months under Section 29A(3). This prevents the arbitral tribunal's mandate from terminating automatically due to efflux of time. Justice Sanjeev Khanna emphasized: If the award is not made within the period specified in sub-section (1) or having been so extended 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. Rohan Builders (India) Private Limited VS Berger Paints India Limited - 2024 7 Supreme 558
The second proviso to Section 29A(4) further ensures continuity: where an application under sub-section (5) is pending, the mandate of the arbitrator shall continue till the disposal of the said application. This interpretation prioritizes minimal judicial interference and party autonomy. Rohan Builders (India) Private Limited VS Berger Paints India Limited - 2024 7 Supreme 558
The dispute stemmed from the Calcutta High Court's 06.09.2023 judgment in AP/328/2023, echoed by Patna HC, insisting on pre-expiry filings. Ashok Kumar Gupta VS M. D. Creations - 2024 0 Supreme(Cal) 1218 Contrarily, Delhi HC in BSNL (2023 SCC OnLine Del 7135) held petitions under Section 29A entertainable post-lapse, noting the Calcutta view was under SC challenge via SLP 23320/2023. TRANSSTROY DINDIGUL-THENI-KUMAIL-TOLLWAYS PVT LTD Vs. NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA - 2024 Supreme(Online)(DEL) 4549
This split necessitated SC intervention, resolving in favor of post-expiry applications to avoid technical terminations undermining substantive justice. Rohan Builders (India) Private Limited VS Berger Paints India Limited - 2024 7 Supreme 558
Section 29A(4)'s phrase either prior to or after the expiry of the period so specified is unambiguous, empowering post-expiry extensions. The Court distinguished terminate from the Law Commission's suggested suspend, underscoring legislative flexibility. Rohan Builders (India) Private Limited VS Berger Paints India Limited - 2024 7 Supreme 558
Historically, pre-2015 insertions (amended 2019), the Arbitration Act, 1940's Section 28 allowed post-expiry extensions. Section 29A curbs delays without rigidity, excluding fixed timelines for international commercial arbitrations post-2019, urging expeditious disposal. The Court affirmed: The court has the power to extend the period for making an award at any time before or after the mandated period. Rohan Builders (India) Private Limited VS Berger Paints India Limited - 2024 7 Supreme 558
Subsequent cases affirm and nuance the ruling. In a Delhi reference, courts noted petitions maintainable post-lapse per Rohan Builders. TRANSSTROY DINDIGUL-THENI-KUMAIL-TOLLWAYS PVT LTD Vs. NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA - 2024 Supreme(Online)(DEL) 4549 Madras HC, in applications under Section 29A(4), granted final three-month extensions citing SC's stance that applications are maintainable even post-prescribed period, emphasizing effective dispute resolution. R.Vedagiri vs K.Rajakumari - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 67483
Another Madras ruling extended time despite claimant withdrawal, as counterclaims persisted: The court may extend arbitration time under Section 29A only when necessary for effective dispute resolution. S.V.Saranya Partner M/s.Supreme Foundation Partnership Firm vs Supreme Foundation Partnership Firm - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 67486S.V.Saranya vs Supreme Foundation Partnership Firm - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 67485
In National Highways Act disputes, courts quashed mandate terminations for COVID-19/administrative delays, relying on Rohan Builders: The mandate of an Arbitrator is liable to be extended in view of sufficient cause... parties should not suffer due to delays not attributable to them. Ghanshyam Mahajan vs Land Acquisition Officer Cum Competent Authority - 2025 Supreme(HP) 739Roop Lal vs Collector Land Acquisition National Highway Authority of India - 2025 Supreme(HP) 745Keshav Ram vs National Highway Authority of India - 2025 Supreme(HP) 678
A post-SC case distinguished it: No extension if no pre-expiry application filed—without there being any extension application, there was no question of extension. Manbhupinder Singh Atwal S/O Barinder Singh Atwal vs Neeraj Kumarpal Shah - 2025 0 Supreme(Guj) 1695
Extensions are not automatic:- Require sufficient cause (e.g., arbitrator demise, insolvency). Scarpe Marketing Private Limited Vs Anheuser Busch Inbev India Limited - 2025 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 5022- No revival absent any application. Manbhupinder Singh Atwal S/O Barinder Singh Atwal vs Neeraj Kumarpal Shah - 2025 0 Supreme(Guj) 1695- Inapplicable to international commercial arbitrations or pre-amendment cases. Rohan Builders (India) Private Limited VS Berger Paints India Limited - 2024 7 Supreme 558- Courts may reduce fees or substitute arbitrators, continuing from prior stage. Chenab Bridge Project Undertaking vs Konkan Railway Corporation Limited - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 4014
Recommendations for Practitioners:- File Section 29A(5) applications promptly on foreseeable delays to invoke the pending proviso.- Tribunals: Justify delays; courts scrutinize for substitution/fees.- Seek Section 29A(3) consent extensions first; judicial as fallback.- In award challenges, revived mandates may validate proceedings. A.Tulsi Ram vs Chaitanya Builders and Leasing Private - 2025 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 4005
The Rohan Builders ruling fosters a pragmatic approach, ensuring time limits serve efficiency without derailing justice. It cautions against routine extensions, mandating scrutiny. While transformative, outcomes depend on case-specific facts. This analysis draws from judicial precedents and is for informational purposes only—not legal advice. Consult qualified counsel for tailored guidance.
Key Takeaways:- Post-expiry extensions permissible under sufficient cause. Rohan Builders (India) Private Limited VS Berger Paints India Limited - 2024 7 Supreme 558- Pending applications sustain mandates.- Balances timelines with substantive resolution.
#ArbitrationLaw, #SupremeCourtRuling, #Section29A
Berger Paints India Ltd. 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2494 is relied to contend that extension is not to be granted mechanically but only in cases where sufficient cause is shown. The decisions in Balwant Singh v. Jagdish Singh & Ors. (2010) 8 SCC 685, Skylark Cagers India Pvt. ... Paragraph no.15 of the judgement is quoted as follows: “Rohan Builders (India) Pv....
Arbitral Tribunal is a question, now pending before the Supreme Court in SLP(C) No. 23320/2023 titled ‘Rohan Builders (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Berger Paints O.M.P. (MISC.) 6/2024 Page 3 of 12 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed India Ltd.’ ... The said decision was challenged before the Supreme Court in SLP No. 23320/2023 titled ‘Rohan Builders (India#....
However, this Court has taken a contrary view in ATC Telecom Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. BSNL (2023 SCC OnLine Del 7135), and has expressly dissented from the view taken by the Calcutta High Court in Rohan Builders (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. Berger Paints India Limited. ... Bhupesh Narula, learned counsel for the respondent, submits that the present petition has been filed after the lapse of the mandate....
BSNL (2023 SCC OnLine Del 7135) that petitions under Section 29A of the Act can be entertained even after the mandate of the tribunal has lapsed. A contrary view taken by the Calcutta High Court in a judgement dated 06.09.2023 in Rohan Builders (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. ... Berger Paints India Limited (A.P. 328/2023) and connected matters, is pending in the Supreme Court in SLP 23320/2023. In a furth....
The learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.1 drew the attention of this Court to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Rohan Builders (India) Pvt Ltd. v. Berger Paints India Ltd. a href="./.. ... In support, reliance is placed upon the following decisions: i) Rohan Builders -vs- Berger Paints - ( 2024 INSC ....
In Rohan Builders (India) (P) Ltd. v. Berger Paints India Ltd., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2494 “13. An interpretive process must recognize the goal or purpose of the legal text. ... Rohan Builders (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Berger Paints India Limited (supra) highlight....
“19.Rohan Builders [Rohan Builders (India) (P) Ltd. v. ... Created Pvt. Ltd., 2024 SCC Online Del 6621. and Anay Kumar Gupta v. Jagmeet Singh Bhatia, 2023 SCC Online Del 3939. ... In RCC Infraventures Ltd. & Ors. v. DMI Finance Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., 102024 SCC Online Delhi 8961....
(2024) SCC OnLine SC 2494 , wherein, the Apex Court went to the extent of saying that such an application is maintainable, even after the prescribed period is over.
(2024) SCC OnLine SC 2494 , wherein, the Apex Court went to the extent of saying that such an application is maintainable, even after the prescribed period is over.
(2024) SCC OnLine SC 2494 , wherein, the Apex Court went to the extent of saying that such an application is maintainable, even after the prescribed period is over.
(Emphasis supplied) 18. This position was reiterated in Rajesh Viren Shah v. Redington India Ltd., (2024) 4 SCC 305 : 2024 SCC OnLine SC 143, wherein it was observed: “3. The position of law as to the liability that can be fastened upon a Director for non-realisation of a cheque is no longer res integra. Before adverting to the judicial position, we must also take note of the statutory provision — Section 141 of the NI Act, which states that every person who at the time of the offence was responsible for the affairs/conduct of the business of the company, shall be held li....
“3. The position of law as to the liability that can be fastened upon a Director for non-realisation of a cheque is no longer res integra. Before adverting to the judicial position, we must also take note of the statutory provision — Section 141 of the NI Act, which states that every person who at the time of the offence was responsible for the affairs/conduct of the business of the company, shall be held liable and proceeded against under Section 138 of the NI Act, with exception thereto being that such an act if done without his knowledge or after him having taken all necessary precautions....
(v) While dealing with a similar situation, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Civil Appeal No. 10620 of 2024 [Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 23320 of 2023] titled as Rohan Builders (India) Private Limited vs. Berger Paints India Limited decided on 12.09.2024, has reiterated that the mandate of an Arbitrator is liable to be extended in view of sufficient cause to the satisfaction of the Court, in the following terms:- In an international commercial arbitration, the legislature has only indicated that the award should be made as expeditiously as possible and th....
In an international commercial arbitration, the legislature has only indicated that the award should be made as expeditiously as possible and that an endeavour may be made to dispose of the matter within a period of twelve months from the completion of pleadings.” (Underlining Ours) (v) While dealing with a similar situation, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Civil Appeal No...........of 2024 [Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 23320 of 2023] titled as Rohan Builders (India) Private Limited vs. Berger Paints India Limited decided on 12.09.2024, has reiterated that the ma....
(v) While dealing with a similar situation, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Civil Appeal No..........of 2024 [Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 23320 of 2023] titled as Rohan Builders (India) Private Limited vs. Berger Paints India Limited decided on 12.09.2024, has reiterated that the mandate of an Arbitrator is liable to be extended, in view of sufficient cause, to the satisfaction of the Court, in the following terms:- “15. Rohan Builders (India) Pvt. Ltd. (supra) highlights that an interpretation allowing an extension application post the expiry period wou....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
