In a ruling that directly affects how delayed arbitration cases are handled across India, the Supreme Court of India has clarified that courts can extend an arbitrator’s mandate even after an arbitral award has already been delivered beyond the statutory deadline.
The judgment settles a long-standing dispute over whether such late awards automatically collapse due to expiry of the arbitrator’s authority. The Court made it clear: delay alone does not shut the courthouse door.
Read also:- After 22 Years of Service, MP High Court Reinstates District Court Employees, Quashes Termination Orders
Background of the Case
The dispute arose from three agreements to sell between C. Velusamy, the appellant, and K. Indhera, the respondent. When disagreements surfaced, arbitration was invoked, and a sole arbitrator was appointed by the Madras High Court in April 2022.
Pleadings were completed in August 2022, triggering the statutory 12-month deadline under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. By mutual consent, this period was extended by another six months, taking the final deadline to 20 February 2024.
Arguments concluded in September 2023, but repeated settlement discussions and adjournments followed. The arbitrator eventually delivered the award on 11 May 2024 - nearly three months after the mandate had technically expired.
Read also:- Supreme Court Upholds Joint Insolvency Against Grand Venezia, Bhasin Group in Real Estate Dispute
Challenge Before the High Court
The respondent challenged the award under Section 34 of the Act, arguing that the arbitrator had no authority left when the award was delivered. Separately, the appellant moved the High Court under Section 29A seeking extension of the arbitrator’s mandate.
The High Court rejected the extension plea, holding that once an award is passed after expiry of mandate, the court cannot revive the arbitrator’s authority. Based on this view, the High Court also set aside the arbitral award.
This twin setback brought the matter before the Supreme Court.
Court’s Observations
The Supreme Court examined the purpose behind introducing strict timelines for arbitration. It noted that these limits were meant to discipline delays, not to destroy completed proceedings on technical grounds.
“The power of the court is not impaired by the indiscretion of the arbitrator in rendering an award without a mandate,” the bench observed.
The judges explained that a delayed award does not become a decree and remains unenforceable. However, that fact alone does not block the court from later extending the arbitrator’s mandate if sufficient cause is shown.
Importantly, the Court rejected the idea that expiry of mandate results in an irreversible legal death of the arbitration process.
Read also:- Poll-Eve Murder: Calcutta High Court Upholds Life Imprisonment of Convicts
Interpretation of Section 29A
The Court closely read Section 29A of the Arbitration Act and found no express bar against granting an extension after an award is delivered.
“The statute does not say that once an award is rendered, the court’s jurisdiction vanishes,” the bench noted, adding that termination of mandate under Section 29A is conditional and temporary, not absolute.
The Court approved earlier observations that courts can even examine extension applications after an award is pronounced, depending on the facts.
Supreme Court’s Decision
Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court set aside the Madras High Court’s orders. It restored the appellant’s application for extension of the arbitrator’s mandate and directed the High Court to decide it afresh in light of the principles laid down.
Read also:- Supreme Court Restores Unopposed Panchayat Election, Says High Courts Must Not Interrupt Poll Process
The bench held that:
- Courts can entertain applications under Section 29A even after expiry of timelines.
- Such applications remain maintainable even if an award has already been delivered late.
- A delayed award is unenforceable unless the court extends the arbitrator’s mandate.
With this, the Supreme Court concluded the matter and remitted it back to the High Court for further proceedings.
Case Title: C. Velusamy v. K. Indhera
Case No.: Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 6551 of 2025
Case Type: Arbitration - Extension of Arbitrator Mandate
Decision Date: 3 February 2026
