Introduction
The Delhi High Court, in a recent judgment, allowed a petition under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, for the extension of the mandate of the Ld. Arbitrator, filed subsequent to the expiration of the learned Arbitrator's mandate.

Facts in a Nutshell
A dispute arose out of an arbitration agreement, stipulating that the arbitration be conducted under the aegis of the Indian Council of Arbitration (ICA). The Petitioner invoked arbitration in accordance with the ICA Rules for the appointment of an arbitrator. These rules mandate the completion of pleadings prior to appointing an arbitrator. The Petitioner filed its Statement of Claim on 13th June 2022, and the Respondents filed their Counter Statement on 4th August 2022. No further pleadings were submitted.

Subsequently, the ICA appointed a Ld. Arbitrator on 27th January 2023. The mandate of the Learned Arbitrator terminated one year after the completion of the pleadings, that is, on 4th August 2023. The Petitioner filed a Petition under Section 29A of the Arbitration Act, 1996, on 16th November 2023. The Learned Arbitrator published his Award on 11th December 2023, which was received by the Petitioner on 20th December 2023.

Issue for consideration
The issue for consideration before the High Court in the Section 29A Petition was whether the mandate of the Tribunal could be extended even after the Award had been issued.

Court’s Analysis
The Hon'ble Court relied upon the decision in Harkirat Singh Sodhi V/s Oram Foods Private Limited, reported at 3 SCC Online Del 3674 wherein an Award was rendered during the pendency of a Petition under Section 29A and the court had extended the mandate until the date of the Award.

The High Court also referred to the judgment in Power Grid Corporation of India Limited V/s SPML Infra Limited, reported at 2023 SCC Online Del 8324 wherein it was held that when an Award has been passed after the expiry of the mandate and has subsequently been challenged under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, a Petition under Section 29A thereafter for the extension of the mandate is not maintainable.

The Hon'ble Court also relied upon the judgment in ATC Telecom Infrastructure Private Limited V/s BSNL, reported at 2023 SCC Online Del 7135 wherein it was held that a Petition under Section 29A of the Arbitration Act can be filed even after the mandate of an Arbitrator has expired.

Conclusion of the Court
The Court noted that the only distinction between the facts of the case at hand and the judgment of Harkirat Singh Sodhi was that in the present case, the Petition was filed after the expiry of the mandate of the Arbitrator, whereas in the case of Harkirat Singh Sodhi, the Petition was filed while the mandate was still valid. However, the Court, having regard to the ratio in the judgment in ATC Telecom Infrastructure, held the Petition to be maintainable even though it was filed after the expiry of the mandate of the Arbitrator¹.

By - Chaitanyaa Bhandarkar and Janvi Kursija