Arbitrator mandate extension remains maintainable after expiry and even after a late award, preserving court control over arbitration timelines

Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 preserves the court's power to extend an arbitrator's mandate even after the statutory period and any consensual extension have expired, including where an award has already been rendered. A late award made after expiry of mandate is ineffective and unenforceable, but that does not extinguish the court's jurisdiction to consider extension on sufficient cause and on appropriate terms. The court may also impose conditions, substitute the arbitrator, and make orders necessary to secure effective continuation of the arbitration.

---

---

Issues: Whether an application under Section 29A(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for extension of the mandate of the arbitrator is maintainable after expiry of the time prescribed under Section 29A(1) and the extended period under Section 29A(3), and even after an award has been rendered.

Analysis: Section 29A is designed to secure timely completion of arbitral proceedings while preserving the court's supervisory power to extend time before or after expiry of the statutory period. The structure of Section 29A, including the proviso to sub-section (4), sub-sections (5) to (9), and the deeming continuity of the reconstituted tribunal, shows that the mandate is not treated as finally extinguished in a manner that disables judicial intervention. The absence of an express bar on a post-award application, together with the legislative purpose of ensuring that arbitration reaches an effective conclusion, supports the view that the court's power under Section 29A(5) is not lost merely because the arbitrator has rendered an award after the mandate expired. Such an award is ineffective and unenforceable, but that circumstance does not denude the court of jurisdiction to consider extension on sufficient cause and on appropriate terms.

Conclusion: The application under Section 29A(5) is maintainable even after expiry of the statutory and consensual extension periods and even after an award has been rendered; the award passed after expiry of mandate is unenforceable, and the court may still consider extension, substitution, costs, and other conditions as warranted.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the High Court's refusal was accepted, and the matter was sent back for decision on the Section 29A application in accordance with the declared principles, thereby preserving the arbitral process rather than treating the late award as an absolute bar to relief.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 does not create a threshold prohibition against seeking extension of an arbitrator's mandate after expiry of the prescribed period or after a late award has been made; the court retains jurisdiction to extend time on sufficient cause, with incidental powers to impose conditions, substitute arbitrators, and secure effective continuation of the arbitration.

---