In a significant legal development in the matter of Apex Buildsys Ltd. v/s Vadera Interiors And Exteriors & Another, a recent petition under Section 29A(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, sought an extension of the mandate for an arbitrator involved in a dispute between two parties. This article delves into the intricate details of the case, highlighting the legal arguments presented and the implications for arbitration proceedings in India.

The case arose when the petitioner, represented by Mr. Suhail Sehgal, argued that the mandate of the arbitrator had expired on January 21, 2019. Conversely, the respondent, represented by Mr. Mritunjay K. Singh, contended that the mandate actually lapsed on March 25, 2019. Despite this discrepancy, the crux of the matter focused on the actions and communications (or lack thereof) from the arbitrator during this period.

On January 21, 2019, the arbitrator had adjourned a hearing due to a witness’s medical emergency, scheduling a follow-up for February 13, 2019. However, after this date, there was no further communication from the arbitrator, leading to confusion and subsequent claims about the status of the arbitration proceedings.

Adding to the complexity, the petitioner has been undergoing liquidation proceedings since 2020, which Mr. Sehgal cited as the reason for the delay in filing for an extension of the arbitrator's mandate. Initially, the petitioner mistakenly approached a lower court in September 2020, which ultimately ruled that it lacked jurisdiction to extend the arbitrator's mandate under Section 29A.

After this setback, the petitioner filed the current application in May 2023, seeking to clarify and extend the arbitrator's mandate.

Mr. Singh raised several objections against the petition, arguing that the arbitrator had effectively abandoned the proceedings due to prolonged silence and that there was an inordinate delay in seeking the court's intervention. He also pointed out that issues regarding the legality of the arbitrator's appointment and the ongoing liquidation process posed significant barriers.

In contrast, Mr. Sehgal emphasized that the court retains the authority to extend the arbitrator's mandate even after its expiration, a point supported by precedents such as Tata Sons Pvt Ltd v. Siva Industries and Holdings Ltd. This legal framework allows for flexibility, particularly when the delay in proceedings is attributed to unavoidable circumstances, as in this case.

The court ultimately agreed with Mr. Sehgal’s perspective, asserting that the petitioner had established sufficient grounds to warrant an extension. The ruling emphasized that the mere expiration of the arbitrator’s mandate does not preclude the court from exercising its authority to extend it, particularly when justified by the circumstances of the case.

The court determined that the mandate of the learned arbitrator would be extended for an additional six months from the date of the ruling, allowing the arbitration proceedings to resume.

This case underscores the complexities surrounding arbitration proceedings in India, particularly in relation to the timelines and the interplay of statutory regulations. The decision serves as a reminder that while legal procedures are critical, the overarching goal remains to facilitate justice and ensure that disputes are resolved effectively.

As arbitration continues to play a crucial role in dispute resolution, this ruling highlights the need for clarity and responsiveness in arbitrator conduct, as well as the importance of timely judicial interventions when procedural challenges arise.