Recently, the Supreme Court clarified an important aspect of Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, holding that an arbitrator’s mandate automatically ends once the statutory time for passing an award expires. The Court stressed that after such expiry, even a later extension cannot revive the mandate of the original arbitrator.
The dispute arose from an arbitration where the statutory 18-month period for making an award (12 months + 6 months extension by consent) expired. No application under Section 29A was filed before the expiry. Despite this, the arbitrator continued the proceedings. Later, one of the parties approached the Court for extension of time under Section 29A(4). By this time, the arbitrator had already become functus officio due to lapse of the statutory time limit.
The counsel for the Petitioner argued that once the Court grants an extension, the same arbitrator should be allowed to continue, since continuity would avoid delay.
The counsel for the Respondent submitted that once the time expires, Section 29A(4) automatically terminates the mandate, and any proceedings by the arbitrator thereafter are without authority. Therefore, only a substituted arbitrator can continue once an extension is granted.
The Supreme Court held that Section 29A(4) operates automatically and does not depend on any separate declaration. When the 18-month period ends without extension, the arbitrator’s mandate stands terminated by operation of law. The Court further observed that judicial extension of time does not restore a terminated mandate. Instead, the Court must appoint a substituted arbitrator to carry forward the proceedings from the stage that existed before the expiry.
The Supreme Court ruled that the original arbitrator’s mandate had validly expired and could not be revived. It directed that a new substituted arbitrator be appointed to continue the arbitration. All proceedings conducted by the arbitrator after expiry were deemed without authority. The appeal was accordingly disposed of.
Case Title: The State Of West Bengal V. Anil Kumar Dey
Case No.: Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 1003/2025
Coram: Hon’ble Ms Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Hon’ble Mr Justice Sanjay Karol.
Counsel For The Appellant: Adv. Pradeep Aggarwal, Adv. Lal Pratap Singh, Adv. Umesh Pratap Singh, AOR Arjun Aggarwal, Adv. Sahil Gupta, Adv. Vishal Singh, Adv. Aman Kumar.
Counsel For The Respondent: Adv. S.C. Singhal, Adv. Padam Kant Saxena, Adv. Parth Mahajan, Adv. Saideep Kaushik, Adv. Megha Gaur, Adv. Vibhav Mishra, Adv. Vihav Mishra, AOR Parmanand Gaur.
Read Judgement @Latestlaws.Com
Picture Source :