The Madras High Court refused to extend the timeline for completion of arbitral proceedings, holding that an application under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, cannot be entertained once the arbitral proceedings have already been terminated. The matter arose from a dispute where the sole Arbitrator withdrew due to health reasons, and the applicant sought extension of time to complete the arbitration. The court observed that allowing such an application for a non-existent tribunal would be legally impermissible.
The dispute between the parties had been referred to a sole Arbitrator. In December 2022, the Arbitrator informed the parties via email that due to health issues, he was unable to continue and advised the parties to approach the court for the appointment of a substitute Arbitrator. The applicant engaged new counsel in 2025 and filed the present application seeking an extension of time under Section 29A to complete the arbitration and pass the award. The applicant contended that the arbitration involved substantial claims and counterclaims, making it in the interest of both parties to continue proceedings.
The applicant’s counsel argued that the extension was maintainable under Section 29A(5) of the Act, relying on precedents including Ajay Protech Pvt. Ltd. v. General Manager and Rohan Builders v. Berger Paints, which allow courts to extend timelines to facilitate dispute resolution. The applicant emphasized that prior delays were due to unforeseen circumstances, including the health of the Managing Director and previous counsel, and that both parties had significant claims at stake.
The respondent opposed the application, submitting that the arbitration had already been terminated when the Arbitrator withdrew in December 2022. Counsel contended that Section 29A applies only when proceedings are still in seisin, and once a tribunal becomes functus officio, no extension can be granted. The respondent also noted that the applicant did not seek substitution of the Arbitrator at the relevant time and therefore the application was not maintainable.
The Court noted that the Arbitrator had clearly communicated his inability to continue, effectively terminating the proceedings. It observed that Section 32 of the Act provides for termination when continuation becomes impossible, and Section 14 allows for substitution of an Arbitrator in such circumstances.
The Court explained that Section 29A(4) permits extension of time only if the proceedings are still active, which was not the case here. It held that the applicant could not seek extension for a tribunal that no longer exists and emphasized that consent from the respondent would have been necessary to continue proceedings. The Court clarified that precedents cited by the applicant, including Ajay Protech, are inapplicable where the arbitral proceedings have already been abandoned.
In view of the above, the High Court dismissed the application, holding that an application under Section 29A cannot be entertained once arbitral proceedings have been terminated and the tribunal has become functus officio.
Case Title: Sally Thermoplastic India Limited vs. Learning Leadership Foundation
Case No.: Application No.4482 of 2025
Coram: Justice N. Anand Venkatesh
Advocate for Petitioner: Adv. K.Venkatraman
Advocate for Respondent: Adv. Thriyambak J. Kannan
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
