Section 29A(5) Application Maintainable Even After Award Passed Post Expiry of Mandate: Supreme Court Clarifies Award Is Unenforceable, Not Void
Case Name: C. Velusamy v. K. Indhera
Citation: 2026 INSC 112
Date of Judgment/Order: 03 February 2026
Bench: Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar
Held: The Supreme Court held that an application under Section 29A(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for extension of the arbitrator’s mandate is maintainable even after expiry of the statutory period under Section 29A(1) and (3), and even after an award has been rendered beyond such period. An award passed after expiry of mandate is not void but unenforceable under Section 36, and need not be set aside under Section 34. The Court clarified that the unilateral act or indiscretion of an arbitrator in delivering an award after expiry of mandate does not denude the Court of its jurisdiction under Section 29A. The termination under Section 29A(4) is transitory and subject to the Court’s power to extend time before or after expiry.
Summary: The dispute arose out of agreements to sell between the parties. A sole arbitrator was appointed by the High Court under Section 11, pleadings were completed, and the statutory 12-month period under Section 29A commenced, later extended by consent for six months under Section 29A(3), expiring on 20.02.2024. Although arguments were concluded and the matter reserved for award, settlement discussions delayed pronouncement. The arbitrator ultimately passed the award on 11.05.2024, after expiry of mandate. The respondent filed a Section 34 petition contending the award was void as mandate had expired, while the appellant filed an application under Section 29A seeking extension of mandate. The High Court dismissed the Section 29A application as not maintainable and allowed the Section 34 petition, holding the award to be a nullity. Before the Supreme Court, the core question was whether a Court can entertain a Section 29A(5) application after an award is rendered beyond mandate. The Court examined the legislative history of Section 29A, including Law Commission recommendations, prior jurisprudence in Rohan Builders, Lancor Holdings and Jagdeep Chowgule, and comparative international perspectives. It emphasized that Section 29A is intended to secure continuation and completion of arbitral proceedings rather than frustrate them on technical grounds. The Court clarified that the expression “terminate” in Section 29A(4) is not absolute and that Court’s supervisory power is meant to balance expedition with integrity, including powers to reduce arbitrator’s fees, impose costs, or substitute arbitrators where warranted.
Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s order dated 24.01.2025 dismissing the Section 29A application, restored the application to its original number, and directed the High Court to consider and dispose of it in accordance with the principles laid down in the judgment. The Court held that the award passed after expiry of mandate is unenforceable unless the mandate is extended, but the jurisdiction of the Court under Section 29A remains intact. Pending proceedings were directed to be dealt with accordingly.