The Delhi High Court has dismissed a plea by Desire Infrabuild Pvt Ltd seeking extension of an arbitrator’s mandate under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, after the arbitrator had already delivered an award.
The dispute arose from arbitration proceedings between Desire Infrabuild and OYO Apartments Investments LLP, where the sole arbitrator’s mandate was extended till 14 January 2024. Although the award was reserved in November 2023, it was delivered on 6 April 2024, nearly three months after the mandate had lapsed. OYO challenged the award under Section 34, and the Court stayed its operation.
In its petition, Desire Infrabuild argued that courts could retrospectively extend an arbitrator’s mandate even after an award is passed, citing earlier case law. OYO opposed, contending that once an award is delivered, the arbitrator becomes functus officio and Section 29A cannot revive the expired mandate.
Justice Jasmeet Singh, deciding the matter, agreed with OYO’s stand, observing that Section 29A is meant to ensure time-bound arbitration and cannot be invoked to breathe life into an already expired mandate. The Court also cautioned against parties being “fence sitters” by waiting for an award and then seeking extension only when convenient.
Dismissing the plea, the Court held that the petition was belated and legally untenable, reinforcing that once an award is pronounced, arbitral proceedings conclude and no extension of mandate is permissible.
Appearances:
Petitioner: Mr. Shikhar Sharma, Mr. Mudit Ruhella, Mr. Aryaman Nehra, Mr. Vishal Tyagi, Advs.
Respondent: Dr. Amit George, Mr. Chaitanya Kaushik, Mr. Avinash K Singh, Mr. Saurabh Pal, Ms. Seema Mehta, Ms. Vidhi Uppal, Mr. Dushyant Kaul, Advs.
