SC Clarifies Section 29A – Award passed after expiry of Mandate is unenforceable but not void
Whether a Court can entertain an application under Section 29A(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to extend the mandate of the arbitrator(s) for making the award even after an ‘award’ is rendered, though after the expiry of the statutory limit of eighteen-month period?
On 4.5.2022, the High Court appointed the sole arbitrator in section 11 petition of the appellant.
On 20.8.2022, the pleadings wee completed.
Before expiry of 12 months period, the parties extended mandate by six months ending on 20.2.2024, by their joint memo under section 29A(3) AA.
On 9.9.2023, the matter was reserved for final award. However, there was settlement discussions between the parties and therefore, the matter was adjourned from time to time until March 2024, when a tripartite agreement was executed. However, it was not placed before the arbitrator.
Finally on 11.5.2024, the final award was passed and issued to the parties on 25.6.2024.
In the meanwhile, the mandate of Arbitrator expired on 20.2.2024.
Section 34 petition was filed by the respondent challenging the award. On 12.11.2024, the appellant filed section 29A for extension of mandate of the Arbitrator.
Timelines for commencement, conduct, conclusion and termination of arbitral proceedings 7. Access to justice constitutes the very foundation of democratic governance, serving as the linchpin of a fair and equitable society. Our Constitution, in its wisdom, establishes a comprehensive judicial architecture, encompassing the Supreme Court, the High Courts, and District Courts for public and ordinary civil/criminal remedies to safeguard this inalienable right. It is imperative that these judicial remedies are effective. In fact, the effectiveness of judicial remedies is a constitutional mission, and it is always a work in progress for the Supreme Court to ensure that the remedies are impartial, readily accessible, financially viable, swiftly administered, and comprehensively tailored. Beyond the realm of public law and ordinary civil/criminal remedies, as indicated hereinabove, parties to a dispute may elect to resolve their differences through mutually agreed procedures, crystallised in the form of contractual agreements. It is permissible in law to have such alternative dispute resolution mechanisms through contract. Section 28 of the Contract Act 7 protects these alternative dispute resolution agreements through arbitration between contesting parties, fostering an environment conducive to expeditious and amicable dispute resolution.
Events that unfolded thereafter are indicative of myriad instances when real life fails to keep pace with human discipline for timelines. Despite the award being indicated to be almost ready, the proceedings were reopened on the representation of the parties
we are of the opinion that provisions of the Act, particularly Section 29A, must not be interpreted to infer a threshold bar for an application under Section 29A(5) for extension of the mandate of the arbitrator even when an award is passed, though after the expiry of the mandate.
Judgment dated 3.2.2026 of the Supreme Court of India in SLP (Civil) No.6551 of 2025 of C. Velusamy Vs. K. Indhera
