C. VELUSAMY Vs. K. INDHERA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) We have considered the text as well as the context in which Parliament introduced Sec. 29A to the Act, empowering the Court to extend the mandate of the arbitrator. The power and the jurisdiction of the Court are not impaired by the indiscretion of the arbitrator in rendering an 'award' without a mandate, particularly when such an award does not partake the character of a decree and is unenforceable under Sec. 36. We have also explained the important role that the Court plays while balancing the twin interests - of securing the remedy of resolution of disputes through arbitration and ensuring integrity in its conduct. Though, the questions that we are required to consider had not arisen for consideration in Rohan Builders (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Berger Paints India Ltd. [2024 SCC Online SC 2494], we approve the observations made therein that the Court can entertain an application under Sec. 29A(5) and pass appropriate orders under Sec. 29A(4) for extension of the mandate of the arbitrator even after the award is rendered in the meanwhile.

(3.) The contractual relationship between the appellant and the respondent is governed by three agreements to sell [Agreements to sell dtd. 19/12/2015, 31/7/2018 and 24/3/2021.]. As disputes arose, the appellant filed an application under Sec. 11 of the Act and the High Court, by its order dtd. 19/4/2022, [Order dtd. 19/4/2022 in Arb.O.P.(Com.Div) No.2 of 2022] appointed a sole arbitrator. The arbitrator issued notice on 4/5/2022 and convened the first meeting on 28/5/2022, and the pleadings were completed on 20/8/2022, which date marked the commencement of the period of twelve months provided under Sec. 29A(1) of the 1996 Act for the making the Award. Before the conclusion of twelve months, parties filed a joint memo under Sec. 29A(3) and extended the mandate of the arbitrator by a further period of six months, ending on 20/2/2024. Arguments concluded, and the matter was reserved for final award on 9/9/2023.