Section 29A(4) extension applications can be filed after statutory period expiry, COVID-19 period excluded from limitation calculation

SC held that applications under Section 29A(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for extending arbitral tribunal mandate can be filed even after expiry of the statutory period, following Rohan Builders precedent. The termination of mandate is conditional on non-filing of extension application. HC erred in rejecting extension application by not excluding COVID-19 period (15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022) from limitation calculation. Sufficient cause existed for extension considering pandemic impact and parties' agreement to seek extension. HC order set aside and appeal allowed.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Whether the application for extension can be entertained if it is filed after the expiry of the Arbitral Tribunal's mandateRs.
2. If yes, do the facts and circumstances warrant an extension in the present caseRs.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Application for Extension Post-Expiry of Tribunal's Mandate:

The primary issue addressed in the judgment is whether an application for extension of the Arbitral Tribunal's mandate under Section 29A(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 can be entertained if filed after the expiry of the Tribunal's mandate. The Supreme Court examined the wording of Section 29A(4), which states that the mandate of the arbitrator(s) shall terminate unless the court extends the period, either prior to or after the expiry of the specified period. The Court highlighted that the provision explicitly enables a court to extend the Tribunal's mandate even after the expiry of the statutory and extendable period of 18 months. This interpretation was supported by a recent decision in Rohan Builders (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Berger Paints India Ltd., which clarified that the application for extension can be filed after the expiry of the period, recognizing party autonomy to move an application before the Court for further extension. Thus, the Court concluded that the application for extension can indeed be entertained post-expiry of the Tribunal's mandate.

2. Sufficient Cause for Extension in the Present Case:

The second issue considered was whether the facts and circumstances of the case warranted an extension of time for the Arbitral Tribunal to make its award. The Court noted that the statutory period for making the award was affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, which led to an exclusion of the period between 15.03.2020 and 28.02.2022 from the computation of periods of limitation, as per its earlier order. Consequently, the effective period for filing the application for extension was adjusted, and the delay in filing the application was significantly reduced. The Court also considered the reasons provided by the appellant for the delay, which included the impact of the pandemic, the complexity of the case, and the fact that the hearing was already concluded, with only the award pending. The Court emphasized that the meaning of 'sufficient cause' should be interpreted in the context of facilitating effective dispute resolution, and given the circumstances, there was sufficient cause for extending the time. Therefore, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and extended the period for making the award by the Arbitral Tribunal until 31st December 2024.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that an application for extension of the Arbitral Tribunal's mandate can be entertained even if filed after the expiry of the mandate, and in the present case, sufficient cause existed to warrant an extension.

---