We accept view taken by High Courts of Delhi, Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh, Bombay, Kerala, Madras and view expressed by High Court at Calcutta. Section 29A(4) requires interpretation. It states, where Arbitral Award is not made within specified period of 12 months [Section 29A(1)] or extended period of 6 months [Section 29A(3)], mandate of Arbitral Tribunal will ‘terminate’. However, this provision does not apply if Court has extended time period, either before or after expiry of initial or extended term.

The word ‘terminate’ in Section 29A(4) makes an Arbitral Tribunal functus officio, but not in absolute terms. The true purport of the word ‘terminate’ must be understood. The absence of a full stop after the word ‘terminate’ is noteworthy. The word ‘terminate’ is followed by the connecting word ‘unless’.

We hold, an application for extension of time period for passing an Arbitral Award under Section 29A(4) read with Section 29A(5) is maintainable even after expiry of 12 months or extended 6 months period. Court while adjudicating such extension applications will be guided by ‘sufficient cause’ and our observations.

– Hon’ble Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Rohan Builders (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Berger Paints India Limited, [Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 23320 of 2023].

_____

The wording of Section 29A(4) and Rohan Builders clearly answer. An application for extension can be filed either before or after termination of Tribunal’s mandate upon expiry of statutory and extendable period. As per Section 29A(5), decision to extend time is an exercise of discretion by Court and must be done on ‘sufficient cause’ being shown and on such terms and conditions Court deems fit.

– Hon’ble Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, M/s. Ajay Protech Pvt. Ltd. v. General Manager, [Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 2272 of 2024] decided on 22.11.2024.