Waiver of contractual time limit in arbitration upheld where parties continued proceedings without timely objection.

An arbitration agreement requiring the award within two years of the arbitrator entering upon the reference, extendable by a further twelve months, was examined in light of the parties' conduct. The Court treated the meaning of "entering upon the reference" as dependent on the parties' intention and found that, even on the earliest date suggested, the petitioner's participation after expiry of the contractual period showed waiver. Continued attendance at hearings, absence of timely objection to adjournments, calls for written submissions, extension of time, and fixing of further dates by consent all supported waiver of the time stipulation. On that basis, objections to the arbitrator's continuation were held to be barred by waiver under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

---

---

Issues: Whether the arbitral mandate had terminated by efflux of time and whether the stipulation as to time for making the award had been waived by the petitioner.

Analysis: The arbitration agreement required the award to be made within two years of the arbitrator entering upon the reference, extendable by a further twelve months. The core controversy was when the arbitrator entered upon the reference and whether the petitioner's conduct amounted to waiver of the contractual time limit. The Court held that the expression used in the agreement had to be understood by reference to the parties' intention and, even on the most favourable date suggested by the petitioner, the surrounding conduct showed waiver. The petitioner participated in substantive arbitration proceedings after the stipulated period, did not object when hearings were adjourned, written submissions were called for, time was extended, and further dates were fixed by consent. The Court further held that objections to the arbitrator's jurisdiction and continuation of proceedings, when knowingly not raised in time and accompanied by participation, attract the principle of waiver under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Conclusion: The petitioner had waived the contractual time stipulation, the arbitral mandate had not ceased, and the challenge to the continuance of the arbitration failed.

---