Bombay High Court Extends Justice Lokur-Led Tribunal's Mandate By A Year In SAP-Cox & Kings Arbitration

The Bombay High Court on 10 September extended the mandate of an arbitral tribunal headed by former Supreme Court judge Justice Madan Lokur by one year and allowed SAP India Private Limited's pending claim against Cox & Kings to proceed. 

A Bench of Justice Arif S. Doctor found that the delay in completing the arbitration was not attributable to any deliberate, wilful or negligent default by SAP or the tribunal. He observed:

“The delay in completion of the arbitral proceedings before the Justice Lokur Tribunal cannot, in the facts of the present case, be attributed to any deliberate, wilful or negligent default on the part of the Petitioner, much less of the Tribunal. In these circumstances, to permit the mandate to lapse without affording the Petitioner an opportunity to have its pending claim adjudicated would, in my view, defeat rather than advance the underlying object of the arbitral process.”

The dispute arose from a contract between SAP and Cox & Kings for business software and implementation services. SAP had raised a claim of Rs. 17.98 crore before the Justice Lokur Tribunal, which was constituted by the Supreme Court on 2 January 2019.

Cox & Kings entered Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) on 22 October 2019, following which the arbitration proceedings were adjourned sine die. Cox & Kings subsequently invoked a fresh arbitration, leading to the appointment of a separate tribunal headed by Justice Mohit Shah in September 2024.

SAP challenged the jurisdiction of the second tribunal. Its Special Leave Petition was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 23 January 2026. SAP then approached the Justice Lokur Tribunal on 2 February 2026 seeking resumption of the original arbitration.

The Court noted that Section 29A of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 seeks to ensure expeditious completion of arbitral proceedings. Relying on C. Velusamy v. K. Indhera, it held that an application for extension must be considered on the facts of each case and not mechanically.

In the present case, Cox & Kings' admission into CIRP resulted in a moratorium under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, following which the Justice Lokur Tribunal adjourned the proceedings sine die. Cox & Kings later initiated fresh arbitration concerning substantially the same claim.

The Bench found that SAP's prompt approach to the Justice Lokur Tribunal after the Supreme Court dismissed its SLP showed that it had not abandoned the original arbitration. It rejected Cox & Kings' contention that SAP was a “fence sitter”. It observed:

“This conduct is inconsistent with any suggestion that the Petitioner had abandoned the arbitration before that Tribunal. In the context of these facts, Respondent's contention that the Petitioner was a “fence sitter” is ill-founded. Hence, the decisions in the case of Desire Infrabuild Pvt. Ltd. v. Oyo Apartments Investments LLP, upon which reliance was placed by the Respondent, would not apply.”

It also rejected the argument that SAP's claim had already been dealt with by the Liquidator, noting that the claim was admitted only notionally at Re. 1 and that Regulation 29 of the IBC recognises mutual credits and set-off.

Accordingly, the High Court allowed the petition. It extended the time for the arbitral tribunal to make an award by one year from the date of uploading of the order, with no order as to costs.

For Petitioner: Advocates Yohaann Limathwalla, Farhad Sorabjee, Pratik Pawar, Shanaya Cyrus Irani, Siddhesh S. Pradhan i/b. J. Sagar Associates

For Respondent: Advocates Navdeep Dahiya, Hiroo Advani, Janhavi Sakalkar, Hitanshi Mehta i/b. Advani Law, Bharucha & Partners