M/S AJAY PROTECH PVT. LTD. versus GENERAL MANAGER & ANR.

Citation: [2024] 11 S.C.R. 850 · Decided: 22-11-2024 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2024] 11 S.C.R. 850 : 2024 INSC 889
M/s Ajay Protech Pvt. Ltd. 
v. 
General Manager & Anr.
(Civil Appeal No. 13004 of 2024)
22 November 2024
[Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha* and  
Sandeep Mehta, JJ.]
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.
Headnotes†
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 
* Author
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 
851
M/s Ajay Protech Pvt. Ltd. v. General Manager & Anr.
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]
Case Law Cited
In re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation [2021] 2 SCR 640 : 
(2022) 3 SCC 117; Rohan Builders (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Berger 
Paints India Ltd. [2024] 9 SCR 473 : 2024 SCC OnLine SC 
2494 – relied on.
List of Acts
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
List of 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.
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 13004 of 2024
From the Judgment and Order dated 03.11.2023 of the High Court 
of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in MCA No. 1 of 2023
Appearances for Parties
Gaurav Agrawal, Sr. Adv., C. George Thomas, Manan Daga,  
Ms. Kaarunya Lakshmi, Ansh Mittal, Advs. for the Appellant.
Vikramjit Banerjee, A.S.G., Ms. Nisha Bagchi, Sr. Adv., Amrish 
Kumar, Siddharth Sinha, Shubendu Anand, Navanjay Mahapatra, 
Ms. Sansriti Pathak, Bhuvan Kapoor, Ashok Panigrahi, Sandeep 
Singh, Advs. for the Respondents.
852
[2024] 11 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
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 Award. Thus, we 
have allowed the appeal and extended th

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.