Application U/S 29A Of A&C Act Is Not Maintainable After Termination Of Proceedings Following Arbitrator's Withdrawal: Madras High Court
The Madras High Court held that section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) can be invoked only when the proceedings are pending. It cannot be invoked when the arbitral tribunal has become functus officio. Justice N. Anand Venkatesh held that “in the case in hand, the proceedings were abandoned and consequently stood terminated as was explained...
The Madras High Court held that section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) can be invoked only when the proceedings are pending. It cannot be invoked when the arbitral tribunal has become functus officio.
Justice N. Anand Venkatesh held that “in the case in hand, the proceedings were abandoned and consequently stood terminated as was explained supra. Thereafter, there is no question of filing an application seeking for extension of time for a non-existent Arbitral Tribunal. Therefore, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondent, the present application is not maintainable”.
The Applicant had filed an application under section 29A(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) seeking extension of time of the arbitrator in the arbitration pending since 2018. The sole arbitrator by e-mail informed the parties that due to ill health, he was unable to continue as arbitrator and requested the parties to approach the court to substitute the arbitrator. No substitution was sought until 2025 when the applicant's counsel sought to extend the time period and not the substitution.
The Applicant submitted that the delay was due to medical emergencies of the managing director and former counsel. Since both parties had substantial claim, the arbitration should continue.
Per contra, the Respondent submitted that the arbitrator's e-mail indicated withdrawal from the proceedings, therefore proceedings ceased to exist in 2022. Section 29A of the Arbitration Act is applicable only when arbitration is pending and not when the it is terminated. It was further submitted that the correct approach in the present would have been to seek appointment of a new arbitrator under section 14 of the Arbitration Act.
Findings:
The court noted that an email sent by the arbitrator clearly amounted to withdrawal which made the continuation of the proceedings impossible under section 32 of the Arbitration Act. It held that “The arbitrator has already expressed that it is impossible for him to continue as an arbitrator and had abandoned the proceedings. Under such circumstances, the proceedings itself stand terminated.”
The court further held that section 29A of the Arbitration Act permits extension of mandate of the arbitrator only when the arbitration proceedings are ongoing and not when the tribunal has become functus officio. “There is no question of filing an application seeking extension of time for a non-existent arbitral tribunal,” the Court held.
The court further observed that although the Supreme Court in Ajay Protech held that sufficient cause under section 29A must be interpreted liberally, its ratio cannot be applied to the facts of the present as the arbitral tribunal has become functus officio.
Accordingly, the present application was dismissed.
Case Title: SALLY THERMOPLASTIC INDIA LIMITED Vs. LEARNING LEADERSHIP FOUNDATION
Case Number: Application No.4482 of 2025
Order Date: 10/10/2025