Arbitration time-limit enforcement means the mandate ends on expiry absent mutual consent, and participation alone is not waiver.

Where an arbitration agreement makes the time for making the award binding and permits extension only with the consent of both parties, the arbitrator's mandate terminates on expiry of that period if no mutual consent is obtained. Mere participation in the proceedings does not by itself amount to waiver of the objection to continuation beyond the agreed time limit, because waiver requires a voluntary and intentional relinquishment of a known right. The contractual time limit was therefore enforceable, and continued proceedings without consent could not validate the mandate.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the arbitral mandate stood terminated on expiry of the contractually fixed four-month period without consent to extend time; (ii) Whether participation in the arbitral proceedings amounted to waiver of the objection to continuation beyond that period.

Issue (i): Whether the arbitral mandate stood terminated on expiry of the contractually fixed four-month period without consent to extend time.

Analysis: The arbitration agreement fixed a period of four months for making the award and permitted extension only with the consent of both parties. The first preliminary meeting was held within the arbitral proceedings, but the award could not be made within the stipulated period and no mutual consent for extension was obtained. In such circumstances, the statutory scheme of termination of mandate applied, and the arbitrator could not continue beyond the agreed time limit.

Conclusion: The arbitral mandate stood terminated after expiry of the stipulated period.

Issue (ii): Whether participation in the arbitral proceedings amounted to waiver of the objection to continuation beyond that period.

Analysis: Waiver requires a voluntary and intentional relinquishment of a known right. Mere participation in the proceedings, without consent to extend time and in the face of a recorded objection, did not amount to a conscious abandonment of the contractual objection. The conduct of the parties did not justify treating the appellants as having waived their right to insist on the agreed time limit.

Conclusion: There was no waiver of the objection to continuation beyond the agreed period.

Final Conclusion: The contractual time limit governing the arbitration was enforceable, the arbitrator's mandate had ended on expiry of that period, and the High Court's view based on waiver was incorrect.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an arbitration agreement makes the time for making the award binding and extension depends on the consent of both parties, the arbitrator's mandate terminates on expiry of that period in the absence of such consent, and mere participation in the proceedings does not by itself amount to waiver.

---