LegalFirms.in
LegalFirms.in Judgments · legalfirms.in/judgments/m-s-ajay-protech-pvt-ltd-vs-general-manager-anr-20241122/ · Printed 07 Nov 2026
Civil · Reportable judgment

M/s Ajay Protech Pvt. Ltd. vs General Manager & Anr.

Court
Supreme Court of India
Date
22 November 2024
Case No.
Civil Appeal No. 13004 of 2024
Result
Allowed
Bench
Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, Sandeep Mehta
Citation
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 850 : 2024 INSC 889
Acts & Sections
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
Supreme Court Reports [2024] 11 S.C.R. 850 : 2024 INSC 889
Issue for consideration
Issue arose as to whether the application for extension can be entertained if it is filed after the expiry of the Arbitral Tribunal’s mandate; and whether the application filed u/s.29A(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for extension of the mandate of the arbitral tribunal ought to have been allowed by the High Court.
Headnote

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – s.29A(4) – Time limit for arbitral award – Extension of time – Application u/s.29A(4), for extension of the mandate of the arbitral tribunal – High Court, if ought to have allowed the same:

Held: Wording of s.29A(4) clearly and explicitly enables a court to extend the Tribunal’s mandate after expiry of the statutory and extendable period of 18 months – Application for extension can be filed either before or after the termination of the Tribunal’s mandate upon expiry of the statutory and extendable period – As per s.29A(5), the decision to extend the time is an exercise of discretion by the court and must be done on sufficient cause being shown, and on such terms and conditions that the court deems fit – Arbitration and Conciliation Act adopts the well-known language of limitation statutes and provides that the Court can extend the time if it finds that there is sufficient cause – Primary objective in rendering an arbitral award is to resolve disputes through the agreed dispute resolution mechanism as contracted by the parties – Thus, 'sufficient cause' should be interpreted in the context of facilitating effective dispute resolution – On facts, the pandemic had commenced even before the expiry of 12 months from the completion of pleadings, this Court excluding the period between 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2023 in Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation’s case, and the agreement between the parties on 05.05.2023 to seek extension of time by filing an application before the Court, there is sufficient cause for extension of the period for making of the award – Reasoning adopted by the High Court in holding that there is a delay of 2 years, 4 months in filing the application is erroneous – Order and judgment passed by the High Court set aside – Period for making of the award by the Arbitral Tribunal is extended. [Paras 2, 8, 10, 11, 12-18]

Keywords: Application for extension of mandate of arbitral tribunal · Time limit for arbitral award · Arbitral award · Sufficient cause · COVID pandemic · Period of limitation · Delay · Efficiency in the conduct of arbitral proceedings · Dispute resolution remedy through arbitration · Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation case

As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.

Full Judgment Text

Judgment Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. The short issue in this appeal is whether the application filed by the appellant under Section 29A(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 19961 for extension of the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal ought to have been allowed by the High Court. The text of Section 29A was sufficient for us to come to the conclusion that the Court has the power and jurisdiction to extend the period. Further, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we found that there is ‘sufficient cause’ for the Court to extend the period for making the A
Full text available to subscribers
Subscribe to access complete judgment text, daily digests, and AI-powered legal research tools. For informational and research purposes only.
View Subscription Plans →
Annual plans from ₹1,599 + GST.

This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.

All SC judgments →