Court Can Extend Mandate Of Arbitrator Multiple Times If Sufficient Cause Is Shown U/S 29A(5) Of Arbitration Act: Calcutta HC

This is the second filed by the Petitioner seeking extension of the mandate of the Arbitrator under section 29A(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act).

The Application filed by the Petitioner was rejected on the ground that it had been filed after the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal had expired. The Petitioner challenged this order before the Supreme Court by filing a Civil Appeal which was also disposed of. The key issue that arises for consideration in the present case is whether the Courts are empowered to entertain an application under section 29A(4) of the Arbitration Act seeking extension of the Arbitrator's mandate after its mandate had already expired.

The Supreme Court while disposing of the Application held that the term terminate used in section 29A(4) of the Arbitration Act cannot be interpreted narrowly. This word does not mean that the Arbitral Proceedings come to an irreversible end if the Application seeking extension of the mandate is not filed before its expiry. The court held that proceedings can be continued even based on the application filed after the expiry of the mandate.

The Petitioner submitted that multiple applications for extension of mandate of the learned Arbitrator may be filed and the Court should not give a restricted meaning to the provision of Section 29A(4), by holding that the power of the Court to extend the mandate can be only exercised only once.

Per contra, the Respondent submitted that although the Supreme Court had fixed a date by which the Award had to be published, the Petitioner committed delay in filing the affidavit of evidence and it was submitted only 151st days after the court's decision. This shows lack of due diligence on the petitioner. Therefore, the extension cannot be granted in the present case beyond the date fixed by the Supreme Court. Additionally, the Petitioner is seeking the extension on frivolous grounds which do not constitute sufficient cause under section 29A(5) of the Arbitration Act.

The court observed that the Supreme Court while disposing of the application held that the courts are not bound by the limitation period for filing extension applications nor are they prohibited from granting extension more than once. While parties can mutually extend the time period by six months, such timelines are not applicable to extensions ordered by the courts. Even delayed applications can be entertained if the sufficient cause is shown.

Based on the above, the court held that this court is not prohibited from granting further extensions if sufficient cause is established even if the Supreme Court has fixed the date of publication of the Award.

It held that the petitioner has given proper justifications as to why the affidavit of evidence was filed 151 days after the court's decision. The examination of the first witness went for over a year followed by extensive cross examination. This necessitated the compilation of a thousand pages of documents including invoices, bank statements and tax records which the second witness had to co-relate and present in a detailed chart.

It concluded that the witness had to travel from Pune to Kolkata for the purpose of assisting his counsel. In light of the above explanations and pendency of respondent's counterclaim, the court extended the mandate of the Arbitrator beyond the timeline set by the Supreme Court.

Accordingly, the present application was disposed of.

Case Title: ROHAN BUILDERS (INDIA) PVT. LTD. VS BERGER PAINTS INDIA LIMITED

Case Number: AP-COM/428/2025

Order Date: 21/07/2025

Mr. Amitesh Banerjee, Sr. Adv. Mr. Soumya Roy Chowdhury, Adv. Mr. Chayan Gupta, Adv. Mr. Sarosij Dasgupta, Adv. Mr. Ritesh Ganguly, Adv. Ms. Susrea Mitra, Adv. Mr. Ramanuj Ray Chowdhuri, Adv. . . .for the petitioner.

Mr. Anirban Ray, Sr. Adv. Mr. Snehashis Sen, Adv. …for the respondent

Click Here To Read/Download The Order