Proceedings Between Expiry Of Arbitrator's Mandate And Its Extension Are Not Void If Mandate Is Extended: Calcutta High Court
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar held that proceedings conducted by the Arbitrator between the expiry of the mandate and its subsequent extension cannot be declared void once the application seeking extension is allowed. Upon extension, the mandate relates back to the date of expiry. The present application has been filed seeking extension of the...
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar held that proceedings conducted by the Arbitrator between the expiry of the mandate and its subsequent extension cannot be declared void once the application seeking extension is allowed. Upon extension, the mandate relates back to the date of expiry.
The present application has been filed seeking extension of the Arbitrator's mandate. Earlier, the Respondent objected on the ground that the Arbitration continued the proceedings even after the mandate had lapsed. However, as noted by the court in its previous order, the petitioner's continuous participation and examination of witnesses constituted an implied agreement between the parties to extend the mandate.
The Respondent submitted that sufficient cause has not been shown for the delay in filing the application.
It was further submitted that unless this Court decides the fate of the proceedings which took place after 18 months, and till the filing of the application before this Court, the mandate should not be extended. The learned Arbitrator was functus officio and the proceedings were a nullity.
The court observed that extension of mandate by court relates back to the date of termination of the mandate of the Arbitrator even if the application is filed after the termination of the mandate. As per section 29A(4) of the Arbitration Act, the mandate of the Arbitrator is terminated if the award is passed within the stipulated time period or extended period unless the court extends the mandate either before or after expiry of the time period.
The phrase “prior to or after" makes it abundantly clear that the court can revive the mandate post expiry. Therefore, the court's order validates the proceedings conducted during the interim and the proceedings held between the termination and the extension of the mandate cannot be declared as void.
It further observed that the legislative intent behind section 29A(4) of the Arbitration Act is that the Arbitral Proceedings should be continued during the pendency of application seeking extension of mandate. The mandate by the court can be extended either before or after expiry of the mandate and once it is extended, it applies retrospectively and validates the interim proceedings. Though the proceedings after the expiry remain without jurisdiction until the mandate is extended. But once it is granted, it revives the mandate from the date of expiry. Accordingly, the mandate of the Arbitrator was extended by one year.
Case Title: GLEN INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED VS ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
Case Number: AP-COM/540/2025
Judgment Date: 12/08/2025
Mr. Subhasish Sengupta, Adv. Mr. Biswajib Ghosh, Adv. Mr. Sayak Mitra, Adv. Mr. Avirup Chatterjee, Adv. Mr. Rishov Das, Adv. …for the petitioner.
Mr. Sanjay Paul, Adv. …for the respondent.