The High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati has dismissed a Commercial Court Appeal, upholding a Special Court’s order that extended an arbitrator’s mandate. The High Court affirmed the legal principle that an application for extension of an arbitral mandate under Section 29-A(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, (in short “the Act, 1996”) is maintainable even if filed after the statutory period for the mandate has expired.
The judgment was delivered by a division bench comprising Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Maheswara Rao Kuncheam in Commercial Court Appeal No: 22/2025 on September 19, 2025.
Background of the Case
The appeal was filed by Chidepudi Bhanu Srivastava and M/s. Sree Anjaneya RMC (appellants) challenging an order dated 25.07.2025 from the Special Court for Trial and Disposal of Commercial Disputes, Vijayawada.
The case before the Special Court was C.A.O.P. No. 5 of 2024, filed by Sri Kancharla Subrahmanyam (respondent) under Section 29-A(5) of the Act, 1996. The petition sought an extension of time for the arbitral proceedings before a Sole Arbitrator, as the mandate was set to expire on 20.05.2024. The Special Court allowed the petition, extending the arbitrator’s mandate up to 31.12.2025, after finding that a “sufficient cause was established for non-completion of the arbitral mandate within time.”
Appellants’ Arguments
The appellants contested the Special Court’s order before the High Court on several grounds. It was submitted that the application for extension was “not filed within the statutory period for the arbitral mandate” and that “any application for condonation of delay was also not filed.”
The appellants argued that the law laid down in Rohan Builders (India) Private Limited v. Berger Paints India Limited (2024 SCC OnLine SC 2494), which the Special Court relied upon, was not applicable. Their contention was that once the arbitrator’s mandate stood terminated by the lapse of the statutory period, “it could not be revived.”
Furthermore, the appellants argued that the “cause shown was not sufficient” for an extension, and in any event, the period “ought not to have been extended up to 31.12.2025.”
High Court’s Analysis and Findings
The High Court framed two primary points for determination:
- Whether the application for extension of the arbitral mandate can be entertained after the expiry of the mandate.
- Whether the learned Special Judge rightly extended the period, finding sufficient cause.
Point 1: Maintainability of Application After Mandate Expiry
The High Court held that the issue was “not res integra.” The bench analyzed Section 29-A(4) of the Act, 1996, which stipulates that an arbitrator’s mandate shall terminate “unless the Court has, either prior to or after the expiry of the period so specified, extended the period”.
The judgment referred extensively to the Supreme Court’s decision in Rohan Builders (supra). The High Court noted that the Apex Court, in that case, held that Section 29-A(4) “expressly empowers the Court to extend the period for making the arbitral award… and that the expression ‘either prior to or after the expiry of the period so specified’ occurring in Section 29A(4) is clear and unambiguous, thereby conferring power on the Court to extend time even if the application is filed after expiry of the period”.
The High Court quoted paragraph 19 of the Rohan Builders judgment, which states: “In view of the above discussion, we hold that an application for extension of the time period for passing an arbitral award under Section 29A(4) read with Section 29A(5) is maintainable even after the expiry of the twelve-month or the extended six-month period, as the case may be.”
The bench further cited the recent Supreme Court case, Ajay Protech Private Limited v. General Manager (2024 SCC OnLine SC 3381), which reaffirmed the Rohan Builders decision. Quoting Ajay Protech, the High Court observed that “the termination of mandate under the provision is only conditional on the non-filing of an extension application, and cannot be taken to mean that the mandate cannot be extended once it expires.”
In light of these precedents, the High Court concluded that the appellants’ contention was “unsustainable being contrary to the legal position.”
Point 2: Sufficiency of Cause for Extension
On the second point, the High Court examined the record of the arbitral proceedings. It found that the Special Court had “recorded specific reasons for extension of the mandate.”
The judgment noted that the delay in the arbitration was “attributable to various adjournments, including those occasioned by the impleadment petition and the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, both of which consumed considerable time.” The impleadment petition was filed by the first appellant’s wife, and the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC was filed by the appellants.
The High Court affirmed the Special Court’s finding, stating, “A perusal of the C.A.O.P., filed under Section 29A(5) of the Act 1996, satisfies us that the learned Special Court has rightly recorded a finding of sufficient cause for extension of time.”
Addressing the appellants’ final argument regarding the length of the extension, the High Court held that “the extension by what period, lies within the discretion of the Special Court,” and “we do not find any reason to interfere with the same.”
Decision
The High Court concluded that the application for extension was maintainable, the Special Court had rightly extended the mandate upon finding sufficient cause, and the impugned order called for no interference.
“In the result, the Commercial Court Appeal lacks merits, and is dismissed at the admission stage itself,” the Court ruled.
