Whether an application under Section 29A is maintainable after the delivery of the award?
14. National Skill Development Corporation v. Best First Step Education Pvt. Ltd.[Judgment in O.M.P.(MISC.) (COMM.) 608 of 2023]
The Delhi High Court ruled that a petition under Section 29A becomes non-maintainable if filed after the award is delivered and proceedings for setting aside have commenced. Further, the Court distinguished the matter at hand from the Harkirat Singh Sodhi case where the award was rendered during the pendency of the Section 29A petition, and the mandate was extended until the award date, whereas in the present matter, the petition was filed after the expiry of the learned arbitrator’s mandate. Hence the Court affirmed the maintainability of a Section 29A petition even after the expiration of the mandate by referring to the precedent laid down in ATC Telecom Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. BSNL [O.M.P. (MISC.) (COMM.) 466 of 2023].
15. RKEC Projects Limited v. The Cochin Port Trust[Judgment in IA. 1 of 2023 and AR. 53 of 2019]
The Kerala High Court affirmed its authority to intervene and extend the time limit even after the issuance of the award. The High Court held that the termination of the arbitrator’s mandate does not strip the court of its authority to consider applications for extension under Section 29A (3) and (4) as these Sections allow for the submission of an application for time extension either before or after the expiration of the stipulated time frame.
Since termination is contingent upon the Court’s power to extend the mandate, the High Court ruled that it has jurisdiction to extend the time for passing the award even after its issuance, provided that, there exists sufficient grounds for such an extension.
Source: Barandbench
