ARTICLE
28 February 2025

Extension Of Arbitrator's Mandate Allowed Even After A Delay Of 4.5 Months: RCC Infraventures Ltd & Ors v DMI Finance Pvt Ltd & Ors

TC
Tuli & Co

Contributor

Tuli & Co is an insurance-driven commercial litigation and regulatory practice established in 2000. With offices in New Delhi and Mumbai, we undertake work for a cross section of the Indian and international insurance and reinsurance market and work closely alongside Kennedys’ network of international offices
The Delhi High Court has recently ruled that a 4.5-month delay in filing a petition to extend the arbitrator's mandate under §29A of the Arbitration Act 1996, is not inordinate provided sufficient cause is shown.
India Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration

The Delhi High Court has recently ruled that a 4.5-month delay in filing a petition to extend the arbitrator's mandate under §29A of the Arbitration Act 1996, is not inordinate provided sufficient cause is shown.

Background

The Petitioners entered into a Memorandum of Understanding and Reconstitution Deed with the Respondents in January 2020 to address outstanding payments to vendors, including sub-contractors and suppliers. Disputes arose in relation to the Memorandum and Deed, and the matter was referred to arbitration by a sole arbitrator. Arbitration then proceeded and by the parties' agreement, the arbitrator's mandate was extended beyond the 12-month period to 31 August 2023. The Petitioners then approached the Delhi High Court under §29A of the Act after a 4.5-month delay from the expiry of the first extension, seeking a further extension to conclude proceedings.

Issue

The issue before the Delhi High Court was whether the Petitioners demonstrated sufficient cause for the delay in seeking the extension and whether the extension could be granted.

Decision

The Court relied on the recent decision of the Supreme Court in Rohan Builders Pvt Ltd v Berger Paints India Ltd1, where the Court said that the purpose of §29A is to ensure the timely completion of arbitral proceedings while allowing the courts the flexibility to grant an extension when warranted, and said that a restrictive interpretation would lead to rigor, impediments and complexities.

Reliance was also placed on the 176th Report of the Law Commission which noted that the termination of the arbitrator's mandate results in a waste of time, resources and money. The RCC Court relied on Rohan Builders and said that since the parties had already invested a lot of time and effort in the proceedings, the extension should be allowed.

Conclusion

The extension of the arbitrator's mandate by the Court can be allowed even after a delay of 4.5 months provided sufficient cause has been demonstrated.

Footnote

1 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2494

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More