[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
Randhawa Construction Private Limited vs Ms Hcbs Promoters And Developers Pvt Ltd on 16 March, 2026
$~52
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 16.03.2026
+ O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 222/2026
RANDHAWA CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED
.....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Parmanand Yadav & Mr.
Aman, Advs.
versus
MS HCBS PROMOTERS AND DEVELOPERS PVT LTD
.....Respondent
Through: Mr. Azhar Alam & Mr. Sankalp
Goswami, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN
SHANKAR
% JUDGEMENT (ORAL)
HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J.
1. The present petition has been filed under Section 29(A) of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ["Act"], seeking a third
extension of the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal by a further period
of six (06) months.
2. It is stated that the parties entered into a Collaboration
Agreement dated 11.06.2013.
3. The material on record indicates that certain disputes arose
between the parties, pursuant to which, the parties approached this
Court and vide Order dated 25.03.2021 passed in OMP.(I)(COMM.)
27/2021, the learned Sole Arbitrator was appointed to adjudicate the
disputes inter se the parties.
4. The material on record further indicates that at the instance of
the parties, the mandate of the learned Sole Arbitrator was extended
by this Court on two prior occasions. This Court vide Order dated
05.05.2025, had extended the mandate of the learned Arbitrator for a
further period of nine (09) months from the date of the Order, which
expired on 05.02.2026.
5. It is submitted that, since the award could not be made, the
Petitioner has, therefore, preferred the present Petition, thereby
seeking the extension by a period of six (6) months to enable
completion of the pending cross-examination, hearing of final
arguments, and conclusion of the arbitral proceeding.
6. It is further submitted that despite diligent efforts, the arbitral
proceedings could not be concluded within the extended period for the
reasons aforesaid.
7. Mr. Sankalp, learned counsel, appears on advance notice and
submits that he has no objection to the extension as sought for in the
present petition.
8. This Court has heard learned counsel for both parties and
perused the record of the present petition.
9. At this juncture, is necessary to note the relevant statutory
provision. Section 29-A of the Act prescribes the timeline for making
an arbitral award and stipulates the consequences of non-compliance.
For clarity, Section 29-A of the Act is reproduced below:
"29-A. Time limit for arbitral award.-- [(1) The award in
matters other than international commercial arbitration shall be
made by the arbitral tribunal within a period of twelve months from
the date of completion of pleadings under sub-section (4) of
Section 23:
(2) If the award is made within a period of six months from the
date the arbitral tribunal enters upon the reference, the arbitral
tribunal shall be entitled to receive such amount of additional fees
as the parties may agree.
(3) The parties may, by consent, extend the period specified in
sub-section (1) for making award for a further period not exceeding
six months.
(4) If the award is not made within the period specified in sub-
section (1) or the extended period specified under sub-section (3),
the mandate of the arbitrator(s) shall terminate unless the court has,
either prior to or after the expiry of the period so specified,
extended the period:
Provided that while extending the period under this sub-section,
if the court finds that the proceedings have been delayed for the
reasons attributable to the arbitral tribunal, then, it may order
reduction of fees of arbitrator(s) by not exceeding five per cent for
each month of such delay:
[Provided further that where an application under sub-section
(5) is pending, the mandate of the arbitrator shall continue till the
disposal of the said application:
Provided also that the arbitrator shall be given an opportunity
of being heard before the fees is reduced.]
(5) The extension of period referred to in sub-section (4) may
be on the application of any of the parties and may be granted only
for sufficient cause and on such terms and conditions as may be
imposed by the Court.
(6) While extending the period referred to in sub-section (4), it
shall be open to the Court to substitute one or all of the arbitrators
and if one or all of the arbitrators are substituted, the arbitral
proceedings shall continue from the stage already reached and on
the basis of the evidence and material already on record, and the
arbitrator(s) appointed under this section shall be deemed to have
received the said evidence and material.
(7) In the event of arbitrator(s) being appointed under this
section, the arbitral tribunal thus reconstituted shall be deemed to
be in continuation of the previously appointed arbitral tribunal.
(8) It shall be open to the Court to impose actual or exemplary
costs upon any of the parties under this section.
(9) An application filed under sub-section (5) shall be disposed
of by the Court as expeditiously as possible and endeavour shall be
made to dispose of the matter within a period of sixty days from
the date of service of notice on the opposite party."
10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Rohan Builders (India)
Private Limited v. Berger Paints India Limited1, examined Section
29-A in detail and clarified its scope, ambit, and mandate thereof.
11. The scheme of Section 29-A of the Act does not permit routine
grant of extension by the Court. The provision mandates a careful
assessment of the progress of the proceedings and permits extension
only in light of the facts and circumstances of each case.
12. This Court has carefully perused the record. Having regard to
the present stage of the arbitral proceedings, and also the fact that both
parties are ad idem on extension, this Court is of the considered view
that an extension of a further period of six months would be apposite.
13. In view of the foregoing, the mandate of the learned Sole
Arbitrator is extended by a period of six months, i.e., till 05.08.2026.
Accordingly, the period from 05.02.2026 till the date of this order also
stands regularised.
14. The present Petition, along with pending application(s), if any,
is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J.
MARCH 16, 2026/v/va/jk
2024 SCC OnLine SC 2494
