SC Holds Expired Mandate Cannot Be Revived – Substitution Ordered Under Section 29A(6)

By CA Vijayakumar Shetty Corporate Law Judiciary December 12, 2025

TaxGuru Citation: 2025 taxguru.in 12589
Case Name: Mohan Lal Fatehpuria Vs Bharat Textiles & Ors. (Supreme Court of India)
Appeal Number: Only available for paid members
Date of Judgement/Order: Only available for paid members
Courts: Supreme Court of India

Already Upgraded? Log in.

Mohan Lal Fatehpuria Vs Bharat Textiles & Ors. (Supreme Court of India)

No Life Support for Expired Mandate-Extension Impermissible: SC Orders Substitution of Arbitrator Under Section 29A(6)

Delay Has a Price- Arbitrator Became Functus Officio— SC Refuses Extension

Background

Appellants & respondents were partners in a firm governed by an arbitration clause.
Delhi High Court had earlier (13.03.2020) appointed Mr. Anjum Javed as sole arbitrator, with fee payable as per Fourth Schedule.
Arbitrator entered reference on 05.2020 & issued several directions between 2020–2023 seeking administrative expenses.

Developments Before High Court

Respondents had earlier filed applications under Sections 14 & 15 alleging excessive fee demand; these were dismissed on 28.01.2022 with liberty to seek accounting before the Tribunal.
Arbitrator continued issuing directions to deposit administrative expenses.
On 31.08.2023, appellants informed arbitrator they would approach High Court under Section 29A(4); proceedings were adjourned sine die.
Appellants filed petitions under Section 29A(6) seeking substitution of arbitrator.
High Court (22.04.2025) declined substitution & instead extended the arbitrator’s mandate by four months, while directing fees be charged strictly as per Fourth Schedule.

Supreme Court’s Key Findings

Section 29A is remedial & aims at speedy arbitral disposal; applicable to all pending arbitrations.
Pleadings deemed completed on 11.2020; after COVID-exclusion (15.03.2020–28.02.2022), award had to be passed by 28.02.2023.
No extension under Section 29A(3) was sought; arbitrator’s mandate automatically terminated under Section 29A(4).
An arbitrator whose mandate has expired becomes functus officio and cannot continue proceedings.
The High Court erred by extending time despite the mandate already having lapsed.
Section 29A(6) empowers the Court to substitute the arbitrator when mandate ends; this is independent of Sections 14 & 15.
Earlier dismissal of Section 14/15 petitions was irrelevant because the mandate had not expired at that time.