C. Velusamy Vs K Indhera (Supreme Court of India)
The Supreme Court of India has authoritatively held that an application u/s 29A(5) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 is maintainable even after expiry of the 12+6 month period and even after an arbitral award is rendered in the interregnum. Passing of an award after expiry of the tribunal’s mandate does not denude the Court of power to extend time; such an award is unenforceable u/s 36 (non est for enforcement), but not a jurisdictional nullity that forecloses extension.
Interpreting s.29A purposively, the Court emphasized Parliament’s intent to secure completion of arbitral proceedings rather than abort them on technical delay. Termination of mandate u/s 29A(4) is conditional and transitory, subject to the Court’s supervisory power to extend time before or after expiry. The Court approved Rohan Builders and clarified that a tribunal’s indiscretion in delivering a late award cannot defeat the Court’s jurisdiction to extend mandate on “sufficient cause”, with liberty to impose costs, reduce arbitrator’s fees, or substitute arbitrator(s) where warranted.
The Court set aside the High Court’s view that post-award extension is impermissible, restored the s.29A application, and directed reconsideration on merits. It underscored that delay per se is not a ground to set aside an award, unless the delay demonstrably taints findings or public policy. Overall, s.29A is a facilitative tool to balance expedition, integrity, and finality in arbitration—extension remains available even post-award to carry the process to a lawful conclusion.
FULL TEXT OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT/ORDER
