- within Litigation and Mediation & Arbitration topic(s)
- with readers working within the Law Firm industries
- within Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration, Environment and Intellectual Property topic(s)
The Supreme Court through its judgment dated 03.02.2026 in C. Velusamy v. K. Indhera1, held that an application under Section 29A(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ("A&C Act") seeking extension of an arbitrator's mandate remains maintainable even after an arbitral award is rendered, including where the award is passed after expiry of the statutory limit of 18 month period.
The Supreme Court clarified that an award delivered after the mandate had expired is unenforceable under Section 36 of the A&C Act, but the arbitrator's indiscretion in rendering such an award does not denude the Court of its statutory power to extend the mandate. The jurisdiction of the Court under Section 29A operates independently and is not impaired merely because an award has been made without a subsisting mandate.
The Supreme Court observed that the termination of mandate under Section 29A(4) of A&C Act is not absolute but remains subject to judicial intervention. Supreme Court also clarified that while a belated award remains unenforceable unless time is extended, the court retains discretion to extend the mandate, impose conditions, reduce fees, substitute the arbitrator, or impose costs depending on the facts. Accordingly, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's refusal to entertain the application under Section 29A of A&C Act and affirmed that procedural delay by the arbitrator cannot defeat the Court's jurisdiction under the A&C Act.
Footnote
1 SLP (C) NO. 6551/2025.
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.
