Supreme Court Clarifies Flexibility in Extending Arbitral Tribunal Mandate Under Section 29A(4)

Keywords:

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, Section 29A(4), arbitral tribunal mandate, judicial discretion, sufficient cause, COVID-19 delays, alternative dispute resolution, Supreme Court of India, arbitration proceedings.

Supreme Court Upholds Judicial Discretion to Extend Arbitral Mandate After Expiry

The Supreme Court of India, in a significant ruling, addressed the permissibility of filing an application under Section 29A(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for extending the mandate of an arbitral tribunal after its stipulated period has expired. In its judgment in M/S Ajay Protech Pvt. Ltd. v. General Manager & Anr., the Court clarified that such an extension is legally permissible, provided “sufficient cause” is demonstrated, thus ensuring the promotion of arbitration as a preferred mechanism for dispute resolution.

Case Overview

Background

The dispute arose out of a contractual agreement between the appellant and the respondent, leading to the initiation of arbitration in 2018. A sole arbitrator was appointed in 2019, triggering the twelve-month timeline stipulated under Section 29A(1) of the Act. The timeline was mutually extended until April 9, 2021, under Section 29A(3).

However, the COVID-19 pandemic disrupted the proceedings, prompting the Supreme Court to exclude the period from March 15, 2020, to February 28, 2022, from statutory time constraints. Post-resumption of the arbitration in 2022, hearings concluded on May 5, 2023. The appellant filed an application under Section 29A(4) in August 2023, seeking an extension of the tribunal’s mandate, which had already expired. The Gujarat High Court dismissed the application due to delay, prompting the appeal to the Supreme Court.

Key Legal Issues

1. Can an application under Section 29A(4) for extension of the tribunal’s mandate be filed after its expiry?
2. What constitutes “sufficient cause” for such an extension?
3. To what extent does judicial discretion apply under Section 29A(5)?

Arguments Presented

Appellant’s Contentions

• The exclusion of the pandemic period effectively extended the deadline for filing the application.
• The respondent had agreed to seek an extension during the arbitral proceedings, as recorded in the minutes.

Respondent’s Counterarguments

• Even considering the pandemic-related exclusion, the mandate expired on October 31, 2022, and the application filed nine months later was unreasonably delayed.
• Cited Rohan Builders (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Berger Paints India Ltd., arguing that such applications must be filed before the mandate’s expiry.

Supreme Court’s Observations

Interpretation of Section 29A(4) and (5)

The Court emphasized that Section 29A(4) allows flexibility, enabling parties to approach courts for extensions even after the mandate expires. Rigid timelines, it noted, would undermine the purpose of arbitration. Referring to Rohan Builders, the Court clarified that judicial discretion under Section 29A(5) is central to determining “sufficient cause” and must be exercised judiciously.

Significance of COVID-19 Disruptions

Acknowledging the pandemic’s unprecedented impact, the Court deemed it a valid justification for procedural delays. It highlighted the need for pragmatic decision-making in exceptional circumstances, stating that penalizing parties for delays caused by uncontrollable factors would be unjust.

Party Autonomy and Fairness

The Court underscored the importance of party autonomy in arbitration and the need to ensure fairness. It noted the respondent’s recorded consent to seek an extension during arbitral proceedings, bolstering the appellant’s case.

Decision and Implications

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that an application under Section 29A(4) is maintainable even after the expiry of the arbitral mandate. It extended the tribunal’s mandate until December 31, 2024, enabling the completion of the arbitration process.

Implications of the Ruling:

1. Flexibility in Arbitration: The judgment reinforces arbitration as a practical and flexible dispute resolution mechanism.
2. Judicial Discretion: The ruling underscores the judiciary’s role in balancing procedural timelines with equitable considerations.
3. Encouragement of Party Autonomy: By prioritizing fairness and autonomy, the Court promotes arbitration as a viable alternative to litigation.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in M/S Ajay Protech Pvt. Ltd. v. General Manager & Anr. reiterates its commitment to fostering arbitration by adopting a flexible and pragmatic approach. By allowing post-expiry applications under Section 29A(4) and emphasizing judicial discretion, the Court has paved the way for more robust arbitration practices in India. This landmark ruling is a step forward in harmonizing procedural rigor with the overarching principles of justice and efficiency in alternative dispute resolution.

Stay tuned for live updates on the rupee’s movement and real-time business news on Kanishk Social Media—your go-to source for comprehensive stock market and legal news.