Madras High Court
Sally Thermoplastic India Limited vs Learning Leadership Foundation on 10 October, 2025
Author: N.Anand Venkatesh
Bench: N.Anand Venkatesh
2025:MHC:2365
Application No.4482 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 10.10.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
Application No.4482 of 2025
SALLY THERMOPLASTIC INDIA LIMITED
represented by its Managing Director,
Mr.Mohammed Harris
Having Registered Office at:
229, C/2, III Floor, Raahat Plaza,
172, Arcot Road,
Vadapalani, Chennai - 600 026.
Branch Office at:
#18, 1st Floor, 7th Main Road,
HRBR Layout, Kalyan Nagar,
Bangalore - 560 043. .... Applicant
Vs.
LEARNING LEADERSHIP FOUNDATION
represented by its Authorized Signatory,
Having an Office at:
No.1211, Padma Towers-I,
5, Rajendra Palace,
New Delhi - 100 008. .... Respondent
PRAYER
Application filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of O.S.Rules read
with Section 29A(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996,
praying to extend the time for passing the Arbitral Award in the Subject
Arbitration from 15.10.2022 for an appropriate period of time.
For Applicant : Mr.K.Venkatraman
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/10/2025 02:49:59 pm )
Application No.4482 of 2025
for M/s.TATVA Legal Chennai
For Respondent : Mr.Thriyambak J. Kannan
*****
ORDER
This application has been filed under Section 29A(5) of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [for brevity 'the Act'] for
extension of time for completion of arbitral proceedings and for passing
the arbitral award.
2. Heard Mr.K.Venkatraman, learned counsel for applicant and
Mr.Thriyambak J. Kannan, learned counsel for respondent.
3. The dispute between the parties was referred to the sole
Arbitrator. The sole Arbitrator, through e-mail dated 01.12.2022,
informed the parties that due to his health condition, he is not in a
position to continue as an Arbitrator and therefore, requested the parties
to inform the same to the Court and to take steps for appointment of a
new Arbitrator to resolve the dispute.
4. In the year 2025, the applicant engaged the present counsel
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/10/2025 02:49:59 pm )
and instructed him about the developments. The new counsel, who
represented the applicant, seems to have informed the sole Arbitrator that
he is coming by way of change of vakalath and he wanted to file the
vakalath before the sole Arbitrator. The sole Arbitrator, through e-mail
dated 20.05.2025, informed that he is in a position to continue as an
Arbitrator and requested the parties to obtain suitable directions by means
of extension of time to complete the arbitration proceedings. It is under
these circumstances, the present application came to be filed before this
Court.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the sole
Arbitrator entered reference on 04.10.2018 and the pleadings were
completed on 15.04.2021. The twelve months period expired on
15.04.2022. However, on 01.12.2022, the sole Arbitrator issued a e-mail
stating that he is not in a position to continue as an Arbitrator due to his
health condition. Learned counsel further submitted that the applicant was
not able to immediately take any steps since the Managing Director met
with an accident and he was hospitalized. That apart, the previous
counsel, who was appearing for the applicant, also faced a health debacle.
Under these circumstances, the applicant was not in a position to take any
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/10/2025 02:49:59 pm )
immediate steps. Hence, after the new counsel was engaged and a request
was made by the sole Arbitrator seeking for extension of time, the present
application was moved before this Court. Learned counsel submitted that
the applicant has a claim of nearly Rs.6.5 crores against the respondent
and the respondent is also having a counter claim of nearly Rs.3.25
crores. Therefore, it is in the interest of both sides to continue the
arbitration proceedings and no useful purpose will be served in
terminating the mandate.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant, to substantiate his
submission, relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Ajay Protech
Pvt. Ltd. vs. General Manager and Another [2024 SCC Online SC
3381]. Learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court
in Rohan Builders (India) Private Limited v. Berger Paints India
Limited [2024 SCC OnLine Sc 2494] and submitted that the application
under Section 29A of the Act is maintainable even after the prescribed
period is over. Learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of the
Bombay High Court in Eros International Media Ltd. v. Frioz A.
Nadiadwala dated 28.02.2024.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/10/2025 02:49:59 pm )
the present application filed under Section 29A of the Act is not
maintainable since the proceedings itself stood terminated after the sole
Arbitrator had intimated through e-mail dated 01.12.2022 that he is not
willing to continue with the proceedings due to his health condition.
Learned counsel submitted that at the best, the applicant ought to have
sought for substitution of Arbitrator at that stage and there is no question
of seeking for extension of period since the proceedings were already
terminated and such extension can be sought for only when the
proceedings are in seisin. Learned counsel also relied upon the judgment
of the Apex Court in the case of Rohan Builders [supra] and submitted
that the said judgment will apply only in a case where the proceedings are
in seisin and the period has already expired, whereas, in the present case,
the proceedings itself stood terminated in 2022 and the Arbitral Tribunal
has become functus officio and consequently, there is no question of
extending the time for a Tribunal, which is not in existence. Accordingly,
the learned counsel sought for the dismissal of this application.
8. This Court carefully considered the submissions made on
either side and the materials available on record.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/10/2025 02:49:59 pm )
9. There is no dispute on the facts of the present case and
therefore, this Court directly goes into the issue involved in the case. The
sole Arbitrator, through email dated 01.12.2022, informed the parties as
follows:
"Due to my present health condition I am not in a position to
continue in this matter as an Arbitrator. Therefore I request you to
kindly inform the Hon'ble High Court for appointment of
substitute Arbitrator and as and when new Arbitrator is appointed
on intimation received, all the records would be forwarded to the
new Arbitrator."
10. Section 32 of the Act provides for termination of
proceedings. Section 32(2)(c) of the Act provides for a scenario where the
Arbitral Tribunal finds that continuation of the proceedings has for any
other reason become unnecessary or impossible and in such a case, it can
be terminated. In order to understand the purport of the word 'impossible',
it will be relevant to take note of Section 14(1)(b) of the Act, which
shows that the mandate of the Arbitrator will stand terminated and he
shall be substituted by another Arbitrator where he withdraws from his
office or the parties agreed to the termination of the contract in which
event, it will become impossible for the Arbitrator to act in that capacity.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/10/2025 02:49:59 pm )
11. The e-mail dated 01.12.2022 issued by the sole Arbitrator,
in no uncertain terms, makes it clear that his health condition is
preventing him from continuing as an Arbitrator and therefore, he has
requested the parties to take steps to get a new Arbitrator appointed.
Thus, the Arbitrator has already expressed his mind that it is impossible
for him to continue as an Arbitrator and had abandoned the proceedings.
Under such circumstances, the proceedings itself will stand terminated.
At the best, the applicant could have moved this Court seeking for
substitution of an Arbitrator, which has not been done so far. Instead, the
present application has been filed for extension of time under Section
29A of the Act.
12. Learned counsel for the applicant, by pointing out Section
29A(4) of the Act, submitted that if the award is not made within the
period specified or during the extended period, the mandate of the
Arbitrator will terminate, unless the Court has extended the period. To
understand the purport of Section 29A(4) of the Act, the learned counsel
once again relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of
Rohan Builders [supra].
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/10/2025 02:49:59 pm )
13. The above submission made by the learned counsel for the
applicant will hold good if the proceedings remain in seisin. In other
words, the proceedings should not have been terminated and the period
must have expired and in such a scenario, the Court can always extend
the time and thereby, validate the continuation of the proceedings.
14. The above scenario is not available in the present case. In
the case in hand, the proceedings were abandoned and consequently stood
terminated as was explained supra. Thereafter, there is no question of
filing an application seeking for extension of time for a non-existent
Arbitral Tribunal. Therefore, as rightly contended by the learned counsel
for the respondent, the present application is not maintainable.
15. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that in the case
in hand, even the respondent has an interest in the continuation of the
proceedings since they have made a counter claim for a sum of Rs.3.35
crores. Therefore, it is also the duty of the respondent to have approached
this Court seeking for substitution of the Arbitrator.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/10/2025 02:49:59 pm )
16. In the considered view of this Court, for whatever reasons,
the respondent has chosen not to approach the Court and filed an
application seeking for substitution of the Arbitrator. Therefore, that by
itself does not give a reason for the applicant to contend before this Court
that the proceedings must continue in the interest of both the applicant
and the respondent. This Court would have accepted the said submission
if the respondent had consented for the order. Learned counsel for the
respondent, on instructions, submitted that the respondent is not
consenting for any order. Therefore, there is no question of forcing the
respondent to undergo arbitration proceedings, more particularly, in view
of the fact that the proceedings stood terminated as early as in the year
2022. It is true that the Apex Court in the case of Ajay Protech [supra]
held that sufficient cause must be interpreted under Section 29A of the
Act to facilitate effective dispute resolution and not to obstruct it.
However, this ratio cannot be applied to the case in hand since the
proceedings were terminated and thereafter, the Arbitral Tribunal itself
becomes functus officio and consequently, there is no question of
N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.
gm
extending the time by applying the judgment of the Apex Court in the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/10/2025 02:49:59 pm )
case of Ajay Protech [supra]. For all the above reasons, this Court finds
that the present application is not maintainable.
Accordingly, this application is dismissed.
10.10.2025
Index:yes
Speaking Order
NCC : yes
gm
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/10/2025 02:49:59 pm )
