The Supreme Court has held that courts have the power to extend the mandate of an arbitrator under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, even after an arbitral award has been rendered beyond the statutory time limit.
The bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar has clarified that while such an award is unenforceable unless the mandate is extended, the power of the court to revive the mandate is not extinguished merely because the award has already been delivered.
The judgment was delivered by a Bench comprising Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar in C. Velusamy v. K. Indhera, resolving a long-standing conflict among High Courts on whether post-award extension of arbitral mandate is legally permissible.
The Supreme Court was called upon to decide whether a court can entertain an application under Section 29A(5) to extend the mandate of an arbitrator after the expiry of the 18-month statutory period (12 months plus 6 months by consent) and after an arbitral award has already been passed during that expired period.
The dispute arose from three agreements to sell between the parties. Upon invocation of arbitration, a sole arbitrator was appointed by the Madras High Court in April 2022. Pleadings were completed in August 2022, triggering the 12-month statutory clock under Section 29A(1).
By mutual consent, the parties extended the arbitrator’s mandate by six months, up to 20 February 2024. Although arguments were concluded and the matter was reserved for award, repeated adjournments occurred due to settlement talks. Ultimately, the arbitrator passed the award on 11 May 2024, well after the mandate had expired.
The respondent challenged the award under Section 34, arguing that the arbitrator had become functus officio. The appellant, on the other hand, sought extension of the arbitrator’s mandate under Section 29A.
The Madras High Court dismissed the extension application as not maintainable and set aside the award, holding that an award passed after expiry of mandate is a nullity incapable of being cured.
Setting aside the High Court’s ruling, the Supreme Court held an application under Section 29A(5) is maintainable even after an award is passed, provided sufficient cause is shown. An award passed after expiry of mandate is unenforceable under Section 36, but need not automatically be treated as void or non est. The jurisdiction and power of the court under Section 29A are independent of the arbitrator’s conduct and are not defeated by the arbitrator passing an award without a valid mandate. The expression “termination” of mandate under Section 29A(4) is not absolute, but transitory and subject to court intervention.
The Court relied on its earlier rulings in Rohan Builders v. Berger Paints, Lancor Holdings, and Jagdeep Chowgule, approving the principle that the court’s power to extend time can be exercised before or after expiry of the prescribed period.
The Bench undertook a detailed examination of the Law Commission’s 176th Report, noting that Section 29A was introduced not to frustrate arbitration on technicalities, but to ensure timely completion while preserving the arbitral process.
The Court observed that terminating proceedings solely due to delay would result in wastage of time, cost, and evidence, which Parliament clearly intended to avoid.
The judgment also referred to international arbitration practices, including English law, ICC Rules, and decisions from Mauritius and Singapore, noting a global reluctance to invalidate arbitral awards solely due to delay unless serious prejudice is caused.
The Supreme Court emphasised that courts are adequately equipped to prevent misuse, as they may grant or refuse extension based on “sufficient cause”; reduce arbitrator’s fees for delay attributable to the tribunal; impose actual or exemplary costs; substitute arbitrators where necessary; and set strict timelines for completion of proceedings
Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court restored the appellant’s application under Section 29A and directed the Madras High Court to decide it afresh in accordance with law.
The Court conclusively held that an application for extension of arbitrator’s mandate is maintainable even after an award is passed beyond the statutory period, and the court’s power under Section 29A is not curtailed by such an award.
Case Details
Case Title: C. Velusamy Versus K Indhera
Case No.: SLP (C) NO(S). 6551 OF 2025
Date: 03/02/2026
Read More: JAO Can’t Issue Reassessment Notice Under Faceless Regime: Rajasthan High Court
